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 gam