1. Petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to restrain online opinion trading platforms alleged to conduct betting/gambling in violation of various laws. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 12449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sheel Nagu, CJ, Sumeet Goel, J
Anuj Malik – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
CWP-PIL-104-2025 (O&M)|CWP-PIL-120-2025|CWP-PIL-89-2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Atul Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem, Aditya Singh, Anuj Malik, Davinder Singh, Sunita Bishnoi, Amit Jhanji, Hakikat Grewal, Vibhu Agnihotri, Kudrit Kaur Sara
For the Respondents: Salil Sabhlok, Deepak Balyan, Abhinav Sood, Mehndi Singhal, Achintaya Soni, Sayyam Garg, Nitesh Jhajhria, Satya Pal Jain, Dheeraj Jain, Sunish Bindlish, Viney Kumar, Sehajbir Singh, Diya Sodhi, Indresh Goel, Akshay Bhan, Animesh Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Atul Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem, Aditya Singh, Anuj Malik, Davinder Singh, Sunita Bishnoi, Amit Jhanji, Hakikat Grewal, Vibhu Agnihotri, Kudrit Kaur Sara
For the Respondents: Salil Sabhlok, Deepak Balyan, Abhinav Sood, Mehndi Singhal, Achintaya Soni, Sayyam Garg, Nitesh Jhajhria, Satya Pal Jain, Dheeraj Jain, Sunish Bindlish, Viney Kumar, Sehajbir Singh, Diya Sodhi, Indresh Goel, Akshay Bhan, Animesh Sharma
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not maintainable under extraordinary writ jurisdiction when a robust and adequate statutory framework already exists to provide efficacious remedies for the grievances raised, as bypassing such mechanisms undermines legislative intent and overburdens Constitutional courts.
Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Availability of alternative statutory remedy - Where a robust and adequate statutory framework exists providing efficacious mechanisms for redressal of grievances, the invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction via PIL is inappropriate and impermissible. (Para 6.1)
(B) Judicial Restraint - Separation of Powers - Recourse to PIL while bypassing specific legislative mandates circumvents the intended architecture of grievance redressal and risks transforming Constitutional courts into primary redressal fora. (Para 6.1)
Issues: Whether a Public Interest Litigation seeking action against online betting and gambling platforms is maintainable when specific statutory frameworks, such as The Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, are already in place.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues online platforms conduct large-scale gambling under guise of opinion trading; State contends existing statutory framework renders PIL inappropriate. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Petitions disposed of; petitioner at liberty to raise grievance before concerned authorities under existing laws including Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act 2025. (Para 7 )
4. Under what circumstances should a constitutional court decline to entertain a Public Interest Litigation?
When a robust and adequate statutory framework exists providing efficacious grievance redressal mechanisms, invoking PIL is inappropriate. Court should exercise self-restraint to avoid bypassing legislative mandate and wasting judicial resources. (Para 6 )
SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE
1. By way of the present common judgment, we proceed to decide the instant batch of three civil writ petitions, since there is commonality of the facts and congruity of legal issues therein, as stated by learned rival counsel. The details of these writ petitions read, thus:
(a) Anuj Malik vs. The Union of India and others (CWP-PIL-104-2025)
(b) Kanvik Foundation vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-PIL 120-2025.
(c) Davinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP-PIL-89-2025)
For the cause of convenience, the facts are drawn out from CWP-PIL-104-2025 titled as Anuj Malik vs. The Union of India and others (hereinafter referred to as the petition in hand).
2. The petition in hand has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following substantive prayer:
“i. Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to take immediate and appropriate action to restrain all online opinion trading platforms, mobile applications, websites, and digital mediums from advertising, promoting, or marketing betting and wagering activities through platforms including YouTube, X(twitter), Instagram, Facebook, Radio, Print Media, Television, etc. in violation of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , Haryana Prevention Of Public Gambling Act, 2025, Information Technology Rules, 2021 and various other government guidelines, circulars, governing gambling and public order;
ii. Further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue appropriate executive instructions to authorities
including the National Payment Corporation of India and Reserve Bank India to freeze bank accounts associated with such illegal online platforms, and further direct regulated entities like Payment Gateways, Aggregators, and Third Party Application Provider's to restrain from facilitating financial transactions and deposits to such betting websites/applications.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
iv. Further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to take appropriate action against such online betting and gambling activities under the applicable statutory framework including the Public Gambling Act, 1867, the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, and relevant provisions of the Section 12 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Rule 3(1)(b)(ii), CCPA Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement, 2022;
v. Further to direct the Respondents to forthwith initiate appropriate criminal, regulatory, and administrative proceedings against the promoters, operators, advertisers, and financial intermediaries associated with such online platforms engaged in betting, wagering, and speculative opinion trading activities, and further issue directions for their blocking and removal under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and allied laws;”
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has urged that, the petitioner by way of the present public interest litigation, is seeking to bring forthwith the unchecked proliferation of online “opinion trading” platforms that, under the guise of innovation, are conducting large-scale betting and gambling activities in blatant violation of statutory laws. It has been argued that, despite a robust legal frame-work being in place, the law is being flouted by use of misleading advertisement and unregulated financial systems. Learned senior counsel has iterated that, in case appropriate action is not undertaken, such platforms would continue to dupe gullible users. It has been further iterated that these ubiquitous online platforms, through a
mendacious deployment of nomenclature evocative of legitimate securities trade and exchange, disingenuously present themselves as veritable investment and trading conduits. However, a meticulous scrutiny of the activities transacted thereon unequivocally reveals them to be fundamentally imbued with the characteristics of pure ga
