Opinion Trading in India: Legal Uncertainty and the Probo Precedent

In recent years, a new form of digital engagement has emerged in the form of opinion trading platforms, enabling users to predict outcomes of real-world events—from cricket matches and stock trends to election results and current affairs. These platforms operate by offering binary options on factual developments, typically framed as "yes" or "no" outcomes. Probo Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (“Probo”) is a leading platform which deals in opinion trading in India. However, the legality of such platforms remains clouded by judicial scrutiny, regulatory ambiguity, and inconsistent approaches at the state level.

While these platforms are being widely used by a range of consumers from different industries, their legal classification remains contested. In this regard, a fundamental question yet to be answered is whether such platforms operate as games of skill, or do they amount to gambling under Indian law?

Understanding Opinion Trading

Opinion trading involves placing monetary stakes on binary outcomes, such as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and/or ‘true’ or ‘false’, based on real-world events. These platforms transform current affairs into interactive predictions, offering users the chance to earn money by making correct forecasts. However, the format of such platforms closely mirrors both financial trading as well as gambling, thereby leading to considerable legal ambiguity regarding their classification. 

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) has recently clarified its position in its press release dated April 29, 2025^[1], stating that opinion trading platforms such as Probo, do not fall under its jurisdiction, since they do not involve the trade of securities. Additionally, SEBI cautioned the public about these platforms who misuse financial market jargon and potentially mislead users into believing that they are participating in regulated securities market activities.

The Skill vs. Chance Debate

A core legal question underpinning the discourse around opinion trading is whether it qualifies as a ‘game of skill’, which is generally permitted under Indian law, or a ‘game of chance’, which falls under the scope of gambling prohibitions. Platforms like Probo argue that their model relies on the users’ analytical abilities, current affairs knowledge, and judgement—thereby constituting skill-based activity.

However, multiple state legislations take a stricter approach, with broad definitions of “betting” and “wagering” that potentially encompass such activity. This has led to a mix of rules, with states and the central government looking at opinion trading differently. As a result, the laws around opinion trading are still taking shape and changing quickly through ongoing court rulings.

Against this backdrop of legal uncertainty, Probo has found itself at the centre of a complex web of litigation unfolding across multiple jurisdictions.

Judicial Proceedings involving Probo

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

In July 2022, an FIR was registered against Probo and its founders, Subash Gupta & Ashish Sushil Garg, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887^[2] and Information Technology Act, 2000^[3], for allegedly allowing users to wager on events such as the number of YouTube view counts on a particular video. The accused were arrested and subsequently released on bail. The police registered a chargesheet in the matter in June 2023. Probo thereafter, filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking that the FIR filed against the founders be quashed^[4]. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has stayed the proceedings pending before the Trial Court until it decides the application for quashing of the concerned FIR. 

Separately, PILs titled Mukudum Z. Shah v. Union of India & Ors. (PIL No. 10 of 2024)^[5] and Rushikesh Dube v. Union of India & Ors. (PIL No. 49 of 2025)^[6] were filed against opinion trading apps and platforms such as Probo, MPL Opinio, and TradeX, seeking prohibition thereof as well as a ban on their payment gateways and advertising practices. These PIL matters have been transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 18.07.2025 passed in the Transfer Petition pending before it. 

Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh

A nation-wide blocking order was issued through a Notice dated 05.05.2025 stating that platforms such as Probo and TradeX Software India are engaged in the services of online betting which is prohibited under the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022^[7]. Probo challenged the same before the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court on the grounds that state authorities cannot issue a nation-wide order^[8].  Probo also contended that the blocking order was enforced without providing any opportunity to Probo to be heard.

The Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court agreed, holding that the state overstepped its authority by ordering a nationwide block. It noted that betting and gambling fall under the State List, while skill-based games fall within the ambit of the Union List. The Hon’ble Court granted interim relief, permitting Probo to operate outside Chhattisgarh until further orders.

Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat 

In Sumit Kapurbhai Prajapati v. Union of India, (WPPIL-75-2024)^[9], the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court against Probo arguing that mobile-based prediction games hosted by platforms like Probo and MPL Opinio are games of chance and thus, should be prohibited under gambling regulation laws. 

The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition, observing that an identical PIL, i.e., Mukudum Z. Shah v. Union of India & Ors. (PIL No. 10 of 2024)^[10] is already pending before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, and that it would be improper to entertain a parallel litigation on the same cause of action. The Hon’ble Court vide Order dated January 03, 2025, granted the Petitioner liberty to intervene in the PIL pending before the Hon’ble Court. 

The Petitioner thereafter, filed a Special Leave Petition under no. SLP No. 4385/2025^[11]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated March 21, 2025, granted leave, effectively restoring the PIL under no. WPPIL-75-2024, before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s rationale for dismissal and emphasized that courts must retain discretion to hear PILs on overlapping issues- even if pending elsewhere. The Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted differing Gujarat and Maharashtra gambling statutes, and that such cases require a state-specific assessment.

Supreme Court of India 

Probo Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd. filed Transfer Petitions under Article 139A(2) of the Constitution of India^[12] before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on May 20, 2025. Through the petition, Probo was seeking consolidation of the PILs filed before Bombay, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat High Court. Probo argued that all these matters raised identical questions regarding the legality of opinion trading platforms and whether they amounted to gambling or betting under Indian law. Since the first PIL on this issue had been filed before the Bombay High Court, Probo requested that all related cases be heard collectively in that forum to avoid conflicting decisions.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan vide order dated May 22, 2025, issued notice to all respondents and Bombay, Gujarat and Chhattisgarh High Courts were instructed to stay the proceedings of the PILs respectively. Subsequently, on July 18, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reconsidered its initial stance and decided to transfer all the pending PILs to itself. The Hon’ble Bench observed that it would be more appropriate for the Hon’ble Apex Court to directly hear the parties involved and deliver a unified ruling on the core legal questions raised, thereby ensuring consistency across jurisdictions.

This development underscores the seriousness of the legal uncertainty surrounding opinion trading in India and highlights the Court’s effort to avoid a fragmented judicial response to a national issue.

Conclusion

In my view, an important judicial principle that deserves closer application in these cases is the “dominant element test”, often used to distinguish between a ‘game of skill’ and a ‘game of chance’ under Indian law. The test examines whether skill or chance plays a more significant role in determining the outcome of a game. 

Indian courts have historically held that if skill is the dominant factor, even if some chance is involved, the activity would not fall within the definition of gambling. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1996) 2 SCC 226]^[13], where horse racing was held to be a game of skill, and has since been reiterated in the context of rummy and fantasy sports.

When applied to opinion trading platforms, the question then becomes whether user judgment, analysis of real-world events, and understanding of world trends form the predominant component of participation, or whether outcomes are left to merely speculation and luck.

While platforms like Probo assert that their format requires users to make informed predictions based on publicly available information, critics argue that many of the questions posed are too uncertain or volatile to assess using skill alone.

It is my considered view that any final adjudication on the legality of such platforms must carefully apply the ‘dominant element test’ to the structure and functioning of each product offered, rather than relying solely on terminology like “trading” or “prediction.” This is particularly imperative because superficial similarities with financial instruments or betting models may lead to regulatory misclassification.

Ultimately, the test offers a principled framework that balances consumer protection with technological innovation, and courts may do well to anchor their decisions in its careful application.

As courts and regulators continue to cope with the evolving nature of opinion trading, platforms like Probo remain at the center of this legal crossroads. The outcome of these proceedings may shape the future of digital prediction markets in India and provide a long-overdue clarity on where the line between games of skill and chance is drawn.

^[1] SEBI PR No. 23/2025 dated April 29, 2025 ‘Caution to public against dealing on ‘Opinion Trading Platforms’

^[2] The Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887  (Bombay Act No. IV of 1887).

^[3] The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act no. 21 of 2000).

^[4] Sachin Subash Gupta & Ashish Sushil Garg v. State of Maharashtra, CASE Stamp No.:- WP/9593/2024 & Reg. No. :- WP/3062/2024.

^[5] Mukudum Z. Shah v. Union of India & Ors., PIL No. 10 of 2024.

^[6]Rushikesh Dube v. Union of India & Ors., PIL No. 49 of 2025.

^[7]Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 (Act No. 4 of 2023).

^[8]Probo Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Director General of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, WPC-2531-2025.

^[9] Sumit Kapurbhai Prajapati v. Union of India, WPPIL-75-2024.

^[10]Mukudum Z. Shah v. Union of India & Ors., PIL No. 10 of 2024.

^[11] Sumit Kapurbhai Prajapati v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4303 of 2025 arising out of S. L. P. (Civil) 4303 of 2025).

^[12] Probo Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sumit Kapurbhai Prajapati, Case Number- T.P.(C) No. 001527 - 001529 / 2025 Registered on 20-05-2025.

^[13] Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 2 SCC 226.