The Supreme Court of India on Friday reinstated an appellant’s petition seeking a ban on opinion trading apps. The Supreme Court bench strongly criticized the Gujarat High Court for dismissing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the grounds that a similar case was pending in the Bombay High Court, without examining the matter.
In the case of Sumit Kapurbhai Prajapati v. Union of India & Others, a special leave petition challenging the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to hear the PIL seeking a ban on opinion trading platforms was taken up by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
In February 2025, the Supreme Court of India began hearing a case with significant implications for opinion trading apps in the country. This followed the Gujarat High Court’s dismissal of Sumit Kapurbhai Prajapati’s writ petition due to the existence of a similar petition in the Bombay High Court, and its decision to grant Prajapati the liberty to file an intervener application in that case.
Prajapati’s counsel argued that the gaming laws in Maharashtra and Gujarat differ and that the issue of whether opinion trading apps constitute games of chance and betting needed to be heard separately. Prajapati claimed he first became aware of the issue after observing users, including children, compulsively spending money on betting activities. Upon browsing YouTube, he discovered videos promoting these apps as offering guaranteed profits with zero risk, which he viewed as encouraging and promoting gambling.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and other senior counsels representing the opinion trading platforms contended that the matter should be sent back to the Gujarat High Court but that the petition should be limited to Gujarat, given that the Bombay High Court was already handling a similar PIL.
However, the Supreme Court bench strongly objected to the Gujarat High Court’s dismissal of the PIL.
Ultimately, the court granted leave and reinstated the appellant’s petition in the Gujarat High Court, keeping all rights and contentions of the parties open. It directed the Gujarat High Court to hear the matter on the morning of April 14, 2025. All respondents were ordered to appear before the Gujarat High Court without requiring any further notice.
The Supreme Court stated, “All rights and contentions of the parties have been left open, and it shall be up to the Gujarat High Court to determine what reliefs should be granted or whether the petitioners’ reliefs need to be modified. Matter disposed of accordingly.”
Recently, the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) formally appealed to the Indian government, urging a ban on opinion trading apps and websites. In a letter addressed to Ashwini Vaishnaw, Minister of Electronics and Information Technology, and Piyush Goyal, Minister of Commerce and Industry, CAIT highlighted the risks posed by these platforms, describing them as a form of “digital satta” (online gambling).
CAIT also raised serious concerns about the potential impact of these platforms on India’s democratic processes. The letter warned that prediction-based opinion trading platforms allow users to bet on election outcomes, posing a threat to electoral democracy. Given the scale of these platforms, CAIT cautioned that they could influence public opinion and undermine the integrity of democratic institutions.