Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a batch of three connected public interest litigation (PIL) petitions seeking directions to curb online opinion trading and digital betting platforms. The Court held that where a “robust and adequate statutory framework” already exists for grievance redressal, the invocation of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction through a PIL is legally impermissible. While refraining from expressing any view on the merits of the grievances raised, the Court granted liberty to approach the competent authorities under existing laws and accordingly disposed of the petitions.

The petition titled Anuj Malik v. Union of India and others (CWP-PIL-104-2025) was heard along with two other connected petitions, namely Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP-PIL-89-2025) and Kanvik Foundation v. State of Haryana and others (CWP-PIL-120-2025), on account of common factual and legal issues.

Also Read: "No Individual Should Be Forcibly Subjected to Narco-Analysis": Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Directive, Affirms Voluntariness and Safeguards as Prerequisites

In the principal petition, the petitioner sought a series of directions against digital and social media platforms allegedly promoting and facilitating betting and wagering activities under the guise of “opinion trading.” The petition sought writs of mandamus to restrain such platforms from advertising or enabling betting activities through channels like YouTube, Instagram, Twitter (X), Facebook, print media, and television.

Further reliefs prayed for included: instructions to entities like the National Payment Corporation of India (NPCI) and the Reserve Bank of India to freeze accounts associated with these activities; directions to payment aggregators and digital intermediaries to halt financial transactions for such platforms; and initiation of criminal and regulatory proceedings against operators, advertisers, and financial service providers facilitating online speculative activities. Statutory violations were cited under the Public Gambling Act, 1867; the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025; and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that such platforms were duping consumers through misleading advertisements and creating an ecosystem of unregulated gambling in the garb of financial investments. It was argued that these platforms, although disguised as legitimate trading avenues, were operating as betting portals, lacking any indicators of genuine financial intent or compliance. According to the petitioner, intervention by the Court was necessary to safeguard public interest and prevent economic exploitation.

Opposing the petitions, the State counsel for Haryana submitted that there was no lacuna in the statutory regime. The Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025 had come into force on 09.04.2025 and provided an effective legal mechanism to address the very concerns raised in the petition. The State’s legal representatives argued that the petitioner had bypassed the remedies provided under the law and failed to demonstrate the need for direct judicial intervention through a PIL.

Similar positions were taken by counsels representing the Union of India, UT Chandigarh, and other respondents. They pointed out the principle of statutory primacy and the role of domain-specific regulatory agencies, including law enforcement and financial institutions, in resolving such complaints.

The Court noted that the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) originated through a series of seminal judicial pronouncements that reflected judicial activism and, over time, has acquired significant prominence in contemporary legal jurisprudence. It was described as an essential tool for initiating transformative societal change and advancing crucial legal reforms.

It was stated that the power to adjudicate PIL matters is vested in the expansive writ jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts, which enables them to deliver justice comprehensively and address any infringement of constitutional or legal rights of the people. Despite possessing such broad authority, the Court remarked that it has consistently exercised caution and restraint in using this jurisdiction, choosing to do so only when appropriate.

The Court further recorded that where a complete and effective statutory framework already exists to address a particular grievance through established procedures, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction by way of a PIL is not just inappropriate but also impermissible. The existence of such a statutory framework indicated that the Legislature, in its collective wisdom, had already considered the issues involved and provided defined mechanisms for redress.

It was held that bypassing these structured legal pathways through the filing of PILs undermines the intended scheme of grievance redressal and can weaken the role of expert regulatory bodies. The Court observed that indiscriminate use of PILs, especially when statutory remedies are available, results in unnecessary litigation and risks converting Constitutional courts into the first forum of complaint resolution, rather than their intended function as the final interpreters of Constitutional matters.

The Court held the need to preserve limited judicial resources for issues of real public importance that genuinely require direct intervention and for circumstances where no alternative remedies exist. Referring to the facts of the case, the Court stated that since adequate statutory frameworks such as The Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025 were already in place, there was no justification to entertain the present petition under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

To avoid any misinterpretation, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the substance of the petitioner’s grievances or the issues raised. The decision to not entertain the petition was solely based on the availability of pre-existing statutory mechanisms specifically designed to address such matters.

Also Read: J&K High Court Holds Tender Process Arbitrary And Unconstitutional | Finds Award To Johnson And Johnson A Result Of Favouritism And Abuse Of Discretion

The High Court disposed of the petitions with the following operative directions:

“The petitioner is at liberty, in accordance with law, to raise his grievance before the concerned authorities in terms of extant law(s), including The Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025. The Court stated that there was no gainsaying that, in case any such grievance or complaint is made, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.”

Pending application(s), if any, were directed to also stand disposed of accordingly.

The Court concluded with a direction that there shall be no disposition as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners:Mr. Atul Nanda, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Mr. Aditya Singh ,Mr. Anuj Malik ,Mr. Davinder Singh – Petitioner in person with Ms. Sunita Bishnoi, Advocate ,
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hakikat Grewal, Mr. Vibhu Agnihotri, Ms. Kudrit Kaur Sara

For the Respondents: Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG Punjab,Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Abhinav Sood, Ms. Mehndi Singhal, Ms. Achintaya Soni, Mr. Sayyam Garg, Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria , Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel ,Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Senior Standing Counsel, CBI with Mr. Viney Kumar ,Mr. Sehajbir Singh and Ms. Diya Sodhi ,Mr. Indresh Goel ,Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Animesh Sharma

Case Title: Anuj Malik v. Union of India and Others (and connected matters)

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:076411

Case Number: CWP-PIL-104-2025 (O&M)

Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Sumeet Goel

[Read/Download order]