The Delhi High Court has declined to fast-track a petition filed by Gamban, a UK-based anti-gambling addiction app, challenging a government order that has kept its platform blocked in India for more than three years. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma listed the matter for September 30, 2026, rejecting the company's request for an earlier hearing in August. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sought additional time to file its response after taking instructions.
Court Questions Urgency After Three-Year Wait
When Gamban's counsel pressed for an expedited hearing, arguing that the platform had been inaccessible since February 2023 without any administrative resolution, Justice Sharma pushed back. The judge remarked in Hindi that three years had already elapsed, asking what made the matter urgent today. The court declined to record the delay as a formal submission, instead treating it as a procedural observation. The exchange highlights a tension between judicial calendars and the real-world impact of prolonged website blocks on legitimate businesses.
MeitY Cites Gamban's Own Delay in Responding
MeitY's counsel countered Gamban's narrative of government inaction by pointing out that the company itself took over a year to reply to Ministry communications. She referenced a letter in which MeitY had asked Gamban to explain its access to certain financial disclosures, noting the company's response arrived twelve months later. She also cited a May 5, 2025 email stating Gamban's unblocking request had been forwarded to a nodal agency for examination, with a promise to revert shortly. No final decision on unblocking has been taken yet, the Ministry told the court.
Pressed repeatedly by Justice Sharma to commit to a timeline for filing a response, MeitY's counsel said she could not do so without instructions and requested a return date of July 21. The judge also suggested MeitY grant Gamban a personal hearing to explain the reasoning behind the blocking order, telling the Ministry to "just decide" rather than leaving the company in prolonged confusion.
What Gamban Is Fighting For
Gamban's counsel told the court the company had written five letters to MeitY since 2023 but received neither a copy of the blocking order nor any opportunity to present its case. The petition, filed on July 9, 2026, asks the court to direct MeitY to produce all blocking records under Rule 15, share the Review Committee's findings under Rule 7, quash the orders issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, and restore access to its website and app. Gamban is also seeking compensation for costs incurred during the block.
The company argues it was swept up in a February 2023 batch blocking of gambling applications despite offering no gambling services itself. Its app helps recovering addicts self-exclude from betting and casino platforms. Gamban operates in 197 countries and holds partnerships with regulators in Norway, Wales, Ohio, and Michigan.
MeitY Raises Procedural Objection on Parties
Before addressing the merits, MeitY's counsel raised a preliminary objection: Gamban had named only the Union of India as respondent, omitting the internet service providers and other intermediaries actually enforcing the block. She argued MeitY issues directions to intermediaries but does not maintain visibility into which specific entities are involved. Gamban's counsel responded by asking the court to compel MeitY to identify these intermediaries, arguing only the Ministry possesses that information.
The Bigger Picture: Opaque Blocking and Due Process
This case sits at the intersection of India's expanding internet blocking regime and the procedural safeguards meant to govern it. Section 69A of the IT Act allows the government to block public access to online content on grounds including sovereignty, security, and public order, but the rules require a Review Committee and afford affected parties a right to be heard. Gamban's complaint, that it received its first substantive Ministry response only on May 6, 2025, more than three years after the block, raises questions about whether those safeguards function in practice for foreign platforms caught in bulk enforcement actions.
The Ministry's May 2025 response alleged Gamban monitored browser history and accessed sensitive banking apps, claims the company disputes. MeitY also demanded a government-approved security audit without sharing the underlying blocking order, leaving Gamban to defend itself against accusations without knowing the full basis for them.
The next hearing is scheduled for September 30, 2026. Watch whether MeitY files its response by July 21 and whether the court addresses the procedural gap in how blocking orders are communicated to affected parties.