Indian court rejects PIL against online opinion trading platforms
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday, 20 June, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on online opinion trading platforms, ruling that there are sufficient existing laws to address the issue. The court held that invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not necessary as a statutory framework, including the newly introduced Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, is already in place.
Court cites adequate legal framework
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, while hearing a batch of three petitions, . The bench stated that there are clear legal remedies available under the current statutes, and the petition did not merit extraordinary judicial intervention.
Justice Goel, speaking for the bench, said, “The decision to decline the petition is predicated solely upon the availability of specific, pre-existing statutory framework designed to address such matters.”
He further added that the authorities are expected to deal with the grievances raised in the petition as per law and procedure.
Petitioners alleged rampant violations
Senior counsel for the petitioners alleged that online opinion trading platforms are functioning as unregulated betting and gambling platforms. He claimed that misleading advertisements and opaque financial systems are being used to bypass gambling laws.
The counsel warned that if no immediate action is taken, these platforms would continue to deceive unsuspecting users under the guise of innovation.
Court emphasises judicial restraint
The High Court maintained that it exercises restraint when there are specific legal remedies available. “Allowing unfettered recourse to PIL in such instances would amount to judicial usurpation of legislative foresight,” the court observed.
It stated that statutory frameworks usually empower administrative bodies with domain expertise, and bypassing these mechanisms through a PIL undermines their role.
Indiscriminate PILs could burden judiciary
The court also warned against the misuse of PILs where legal remedies are already available. It said such practices place an unnecessary burden on Constitutional courts and lead to docket congestion.
“This risks transforming Constitutional courts into primary redressal forums rather than their intended role as ultimate arbiters of Constitutional questions,” the bench noted.
Petitioner allowed to seek legal remedy
The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the appropriate authorities under the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025 or any other relevant law.
