Supreme Court stays proceedings against Opinion Trading
In a major relief for
opinion trading
platforms, the
Supreme Court
has asked Chhattisgarh and Gujarat High Courts to pause the hearings of
PILs
before them. PILs had been filed before the two courts challenging the validity of opinion trading as
games of skill
.
The Supreme Court's order comes against the backdrop of multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) pending in various High Courts across the country, challenging sports engagement gaming formats such as opinion trading and fantasy sports. Notable cases have been heard in the Bombay, Gujarat, and Chhattisgarh High Courts.
Recently,
Probo
approached the Supreme Court asking for all Gujarat and Chhattisgarh PILs to be transferred to the Bombay High court. The transfer is being sought to avoid contradictory orders and save judicial time in hearing similar cases. On 22nd May, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings and also directed the petitioners in the state PILs to be heard before it.
Opinion trading has gained prominence in India over the past few years, driven by a growing consumer appetite for interactive, real-time participation in sports and gaming formats. Some of the key platforms in this emerging space include Probo, Sports Baazi, and MPL Opinio, which are tapping into the demand for predictive, engagement-based experiences.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Opposition demands details of Supreme Court findings on Justice Varma
Some Opposition parties are urging the government to share with them the findings of the Supreme Court-appointed panel against high court judge Yashwant Varma in the "cash seizure" case as the ruling side is seeking multi-party support for its push for bringing an impeachment motion against the judge. The more damning the findings, the more inclined the Opposition would be to back the proposed impeachment move, said people familiar with the matter, even as leaders of Opposition parties including the Congress were still firming up their formal response. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju informally reached out to at least two Congress MPs, and some regional parties, seeking support for the motion. "I can't say what is going on between the government and Opposition on the impeachment issue. But, according to the rules, the Members of Parliament, not the government, can move an impeachment motion against a judge with the required number of signatures for admission. So, for us MPs, to sign the proposed impeachment motion, we would require knowing what exactly the case for impeachment against justice Varma is," said Congress' Rajya Sabha member Vivek Tankha, a senior advocate. "So, we expect the government side to share with the Opposition the findings of the Supreme Court-appointed panel that looked into the complaints against justice Varma." Tankha had earlier written to the Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankar, urging him to take steps to ensure MPs' get access to the panel's findings. Some sections in the Opposition nurse a grudge against the government earlier opposing and blocking the Opposition push for impeachment of the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav. There is yet another section which views the case against justice Varma with a sense of suspicion and as part of a crafty manoeuvre. Yet, many in the Opposition feel that the prospect of the ruling side unveiling, formally or informally, critical findings of corruption by the Supreme Court-appointed panel against justice Varma, and the fact that the CJI had forwarded that findings to the government for considering action against the judge, would guide the Opposition's response. Live Events "Corruption in the judiciary is a matter of concern for all citizens and political parties. It cannot be tolerated, and strong measures must be taken to root it out. At the same time, the independence of the judiciary is crucial and the judiciary must remain free from political influence," said D Raja of the CPI, which has two MPs in both Houses. "As far as the impeachment motion is concerned, the government should consult with Opposition parties. It should not assume that it can proceed unilaterally on such important matters."
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
HMT land: Govt. orders suspension of IFoS officer Gokul
The State government has suspended Additional Principal Conservator of Forests R. Gokul in connection with a case filed in the Supreme Court seeking permission to denotify 443 acres of HMT forest land. The suspension order states that the IFoS officer without obtaining the approval of the then Minister in-charge or sanction from the State Cabinet, filed an interlocutory application (IA) before the Supreme Court seeking permission for denotification of lands granted to HMT measuring 443 acres 6 guntas at Peenya Jalahalli Plantation. Following this the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department issued preliminary notices to former IAS officer Sandeep Dave, then Additional Chief Secretary in the department, former IFoS officer Vijay Kumar Gogi, then Principal Secretary in the department, IFoS officer Smitha Bijjur, then Principal Secretary in the department, and Mr. Gokul, then Chief Conservator of Forests and Litigation Conducting officer, in the said IA. 'The replies received by the said officers have been examined by the department and referred along with the opinion of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to examine and initiate necessary action,' stated the order. It further stated that after the issue of preliminary notice by the department, Mr. Gokul wrote to the CBI without prior intimation or obtaining permission of the State government for seeking protection with reference to Belekeri port iron ore theft cases and also to investigate the reasons for issuing a notice and defaming through news articles and to provide him adequate protection. The State government then examined the necessary files and records in the said matter and sought a report on the denotification of lands granted to HMT under Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It also investigated if there are any lapses and any irregularities committed by the officers in the said matter. 'In violation of Rule 17 of A11 India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and the State government is prima facie satisfied that it is necessary to place R. Gokul, IFoS under suspension with immediate effect, pending inquiry,' the order stated. It also directed that the officer during the period of suspension to not leave the headquarters without the written permission of the State government.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
SC refuses to intervene in Tiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam schedule dispute
New Delhi, June 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with a plea challenging the constitution of a committee by the Madras High Court to decide the date and timing for the Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur. However, the apex court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court with a review petition. A vacation bench comprising Justice P.K. Mishra and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing the plea filed by R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar of the Tiruchendur temple. The petitioner contended that the High Court's decision to form a five-member committee was arbitrary, biased, and violative of the temple's traditional religious autonomy. According to the petitioner, three out of the five committee members had already expressed opinions on the muhurat (auspicious time) for the ceremony prior to the constitution of the committee at the instance of the state authorities, making the process 'prejudicial and futile.' "The prescription of a muhurat is purely a religious function; it has nothing to do with regulation by the state," argued Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar for the petitioner. "This amounts to a complete state takeover of our essential religious functions. The committee's constitution is itself flawed." The petitioner also argued that of the five committee members, three have no traditional or historical connection to the Tiruchendur temple and belong to different sampradayas (religious denominations). He submitted that this composition disregards temple-specific traditions and Agamic customs. The petitioner approached the Madras High Court earlier, challenging the state government's unilateral decision to fix the Kumbhabhishekam timing as July 7, 2025, between 6:00 AM – 7:00 AM, allegedly without consulting the temple's Vidhayahar. The petitioner claimed the astrologically appropriate timing was the Abhijit Muhurtham (12:05 PM – 12:45 PM) based on ancient scriptures such as Kala Prahasiha and Sarva Muhurtha Chintamani. Instead of adjudicating on the muhurat directly, the High Court constituted a five-member committee including the Vidhayahar (petitioner), Sivasri K. Pitchai Gurukkal (Chief Priest, Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Pillaiyarpatti), K. Subramaniaru (Thanthri, Sree Subramaniaswamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Sivasri S.K. Raja Pattar @ Chandrasekar Pattar (Sthanikar, Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram) and Melsanthi, Iyyappan Temple, Sabarimala, Kerala. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the constitution of this committee was devoid of neutrality and ignored the unique traditions of the Tiruchendur temple. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar argued, 'This is one of the largest temples of Lord Karthikeya. Deciding the muhurat is a religious act, not a state function. This committee was flawed from inception.' Justice P.K. Mishra said, 'The committee says you consented. Then why did you agree? Perhaps form another committee?' Parameshwar said, 'Three members are from different sampradayas. This is an essential religious practice and not subject to judicial review.' The apex court said, 'We are not interfering. But when you agreed to the High Court's formation of a committee, how can you challenge it now?' Parameshwar argued, 'The state has no role here. My family has been performing this function for generations.' The bench declined to pass any direction interfering with the High Court's order, citing that the petitioner had already participated in the committee meetings and a report was prepared. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the Madras High Court, noting that the petitioner can approach the Supreme Court again if necessary. 'Considering the petitioner's submission that the formation of the committee is itself flawed, we permit the petitioner to prefer a review petition. Respondents submit that the petitioner has already participated in the meetings of the committee and a report has been submitted. Be that as it may, the petitioner, if they so wish, may approach the High Court with a review petition, with liberty to approach this Court again,' the SC said. UNI SNG SSP
