Delhi HC questions MeitY over 3-year delay in Gamban app blocking case

The Delhi High Court on Monday questioned the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology's (MeitY) handling of UK-based gambling harm-prevention platform Gamban's plea for restoration of access to its website and mobile application, directing the Centre to indicate a timeline for granting the company a hearing and clarifying whether a formal decision on its unblocking request has been taken.

Hearing the writ petition filed by Gamban, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed concern over the prolonged uncertainty surrounding the company's representations, observing that if the government had not yet arrived at a final decision, the petitioner should at least be granted a personal hearing and informed of the status of the proceedings.

The matter stems from Gamban's challenge to the government's decision to block its website and application under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act during India's wider crackdown on offshore betting and gambling platforms. The company contends that it was mistakenly classified as a gambling application despite operating as a digital self-exclusion tool designed to block access to gambling websites.

The court has now listed the matter for September 30 after the Centre sought time until Tuesday to obtain instructions regarding the timeline for deciding Gamban's pending representations.

Court presses Centre on due process

During the hearing, Gamban's counsel argued that the company has spent more than three years attempting to obtain a copy of the blocking order and an opportunity to present its case before the government.

The petitioner submitted that despite writing multiple representations since 2023, including the latest communication in May 2026, the company has never received the original blocking order nor any opportunity of hearing.

Counsel argued that because the blocking order had never been supplied, Gamban did not even know which intermediaries had implemented the government's directions.

"They have not made the necessary parties because only the Union knows which intermediaries have blocked the platform. We have never been given a copy of the blocking order," counsel submitted before the court, adding that repeated representations over three years had failed to elicit any substantive response.

The petitioner maintained that the government's actions violated the procedural safeguards built into Section 69A and the Information Technology (Blocking Rules), particularly the requirement to provide affected parties with an opportunity to be heard.

Justice Sharma appeared inclined towards ensuring procedural fairness rather than examining the merits of the blocking decision at this stage.

Addressing the government's counsel, the court observed, "Give him a personal hearing and tell him what you are telling me. I am not saying you allow whatever he is saying. I am saying just hear him and do whatever you want."

The judge further remarked that the objective was to end the prolonged uncertainty surrounding the matter.

"Just decide it. Let people know what is happening," the court observed.

Centre says matter still under consideration

Representing MeitY, government counsel argued that Gamban itself had contributed to the delay by responding nearly a year after receiving communications from the ministry.

The Centre referred to correspondence exchanged with the company, stating that Gamban had sought access to certain information and had attempted to persuade the ministry that it was not facilitating gambling.

Government counsel submitted that the ministry had examined the company's representations and, in May this year, informed Gamban that its request for unblocking had been forwarded to the concerned nodal agency for further examination.

When the court repeatedly asked how much time the government required to conclude the exercise, the Centre sought a day to obtain instructions.

"My Lady, I will come back with timelines tomorrow. I am not shying away. I simply do not have instructions," government counsel submitted.

During the exchanges, the court also sought clarity on whether the government had taken a final decision on Gamban's request.

Government counsel clarified that "there is no decision yet."

The petitioner's counsel seized upon the statement, arguing that the platform had remained blocked for three years despite the absence of any final determination.

"For three years somebody's website remains blocked without any decision," counsel submitted.

Justice Sharma observed that if no final decision had been taken, the government should complete the process after granting Gamban a hearing and communicating the outcome.

Background of the dispute

The litigation concerns Gamban, a UK-headquartered digital harm-prevention platform that blocks users' access to gambling and betting websites rather than facilitating wagering.

Founded in 2017, the company says its software blocks access to more than 480,000 gambling websites and applications across 197 countries and has been adopted by regulators and responsible gaming organisations internationally.

According to the petition, Gamban's website and applications on Google's Play Store and Apple's App Store became inaccessible in India after MeitY initiated a large-scale blocking exercise targeting offshore gambling operators under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

The company claims it subsequently discovered that its application had inadvertently been blocked alongside gambling platforms despite functioning as an anti-gambling tool.

Gamban first approached MeitY in May 2023 seeking clarification. It later submitted detailed representations in November 2024, February 2025 and April 2026, explaining that the software neither hosts gambling content nor facilitates betting.

The ministry responded in May 2025 stating that due process had been followed while blocking the application but did not provide the underlying blocking order.

In May this year, MeitY informed the company that its latest representation had been forwarded to the concerned nodal agency for examination. According to Gamban, no further update has since been received.

Broader legal significance

The petition raises broader questions about procedural safeguards governing internet blocking orders under Section 69A.

Gamban argues that the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A, did so on the basis that the blocking framework incorporated safeguards such as reasoned orders and opportunities of hearing.

The company contends those safeguards were not followed in its case, leaving it unable to challenge the government's action effectively.

Legal experts believe the litigation could become an important test of transparency and accountability in India's online content-blocking framework, particularly as the government continues expanding enforcement against offshore betting platforms.

The outcome may also clarify how authorities distinguish between platforms that facilitate gambling and technologies specifically designed to prevent gambling addiction.

Gamban is represented by advocates Jay Sayta, Akshat Gupta and Sakshi Tikmany. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on September 30, when the Centre is expected to inform the court about the timeline for deciding the company's pending request for restoration of access.