Statutes and regulators
The law on gambling in Pakistan, read from the text
A 1977 federal act, provincial ordinances that replaced it, one licence clause written for tourist complexes, and a telecom power that orders access closed.
Open Vave Advertising link. 18+.
2.21×
collect here and the round pays 2.21× the stake
seconds
- 1.00× – 9.99×
- 10× – 99×
- 100× and up
| Casino | Named by | Coins | Withdrawal limit | Before ID check | Licence | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vave | 3 / 3 | 6 | no limit | not published | Curaçao Gaming Authority | Open |
The question, and why it takes a page
People type is Aviator legal in Pakistan and expect one word back. The honest reply comes in halves, and the second half is dropped almost everywhere else.
Gambling is prohibited by statute. And no licensing regime for online casinos exists — not a strict one, not a slow one, none — which means there is no permission an online operator could hold and no document it could show. Those are separate statements, and the second is stronger than the familiar line about unlicensed operators suggests.
What follows is what the texts say, where each lives, and where our reading stopped. Nothing here is legal advice.
The 1977 Act, and the footnote everyone skips
The Prevention of Gambling Act, 1977 is Act No. XXVIII of 1977, dated 21 May 1977. Its consolidated text sits on the official code site, pakistancode.gov.pk, as a four-page file. Section 1 extends it to the whole of Pakistan.
The definitions carry the weight. Gaming is defined to include wagering or betting. A common gaming-house is a house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or other place where instruments of gaming are kept or used — for the keeper's profit, or, profit aside, where the gaming turns on figures, numbers or dates to be ascertained later. Instruments of gaming reaches any article used to carry on or facilitate gaming, and any document recording it.
The offences run in a short series. Section 3 covers keeping or having charge of a common gaming-house. Section 4 covers being found in one. Section 5 covers gaming in a public place, street or thoroughfare. Section 6 is the private-place offence — gaming in a house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or other place — punishable with imprisonment up to two years or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. Section 7 raises the ceiling for a repeat.
Then the footnote. Attached to the act’s own citation on that official text is a note recording that the act ceased to have effect from 15 March 1978, on revocation of the Proclamation of Emergency on 15 September 1977, under Article 232 of the Constitution — except in the Islamabad Capital Territory.
The act passed while the emergency was in force, and outside the federal capital it lapsed with it. Summaries of Pakistani gambling law drop that footnote with striking consistency.
Four provinces, March 1978
The provinces re-enacted the same provisions as provincial law within days of the lapse.
The Sindh Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978 is Sindh Ordinance No. V of 1978, dated 15 March 1978, on sindhlaws.gov.pk. Its preamble states the reasoning outright: the 1977 act was passed while the Proclamation of Emergency was in force, and on revocation it was expedient to re-enact its provisions as provincial law. The sections track the federal ones one for one.
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978 is Ordinance No. V of 1978, dated 14 March 1978, on kpcode.kp.gov.pk, extending to that whole province with the same list of sections.
Punjab and Balochistan have 1978 ordinances of their own. Both are indexed on the provincial law portals; the Punjab file refused to open for us and the Balochistan text went unread. They are listed here without description, and the blank carries its reason: unread, not absent.
The only licence clause, and what it was for
Section 11 of the 1977 act is a saving provision. It disapplies the act to games played in a tourist complex established and maintained under a licence granted by the provincial government, admitting only foreigners. A footnote records that this section does not apply in the Islamabad Capital Territory, by an amendment act of 1987.
That is the entire licensing apparatus in the statute: a physical complex, a provincial licence, foreign visitors only. Nothing in the text contemplates a remote operator, a website, an application or a payment.
Which is why saying online casinos here are unlicensed understates matters. A missing licence implies a counter that issues them. This counter was never built.
PTA: an access power, not a permission
PTA is the telecommunications regulator, and its power over online content comes from the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 — Act No. XL of 2016, dated 18 August 2016, also on pakistancode.gov.pk.
Section 37, headed unlawful on-line content, gives the Authority power to remove or block access to information carried by an information system, or to direct such removal or blocking, where it considers this necessary in the interest of the glory of Islam, the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court or an offence under that act.
Two details matter. Gambling is absent from section 37 — blocking of gambling sites runs through those general interests, decency and morality among them, rather than any gambling-specific power. And the word Authority has moved: after an amendment act of 2025 it is defined as the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority created by a new section 2A, with a transitory section keeping PTA performing those functions until that body is established. Whether it has been, we did not check.
Either way it is a power to order access closed, not a power to grant permission.
Reported, rather than established
Pakistani press reported in August 2025 that 184 gambling websites and applications had been blocked, attributing the figure to a Cabinet Division reply to the National Assembly. We read the reports and not the reply, so the number appears as reported, with its date.
A writ petition in the Islamabad High Court, reported on 5 September 2025, asked the court to direct blocking of gambling applications and to require payment providers to detect gambling-related transactions. A filing is a request, not a decision, and we followed it no further. One detail is worth keeping: the petition is described as invoking the Public Gambling Act, 1867, the colonial predecessor. Even court filings reach for different statutes, which argues for reading texts rather than descriptions.
What is not established here
Whether any Pakistani court has applied these provisions to a person playing a crash game on a phone. The language is built around physical places and the instruments kept inside them; how it maps onto remote play is a question of application, and we found no reported decision to cite either way. This page therefore takes no position on individual liability, because taking one would mean inventing it.
Whether the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority has been constituted. Prosecution figures of any kind. The tax treatment of winnings, a different body of law entirely.
Whether any State Bank of Pakistan instrument names gambling: requests to sbp.org.pk for its regulations came back refused, so we hold no text and make no claim. What two banks write in their own wallet terms is separate and checkable, and sits on the wallet page.
And whether the texts we read are fully current: pakistancode.gov.pk carries its own notice that content is under review and directs readers to the original Gazette notifications.
None of the above was written to be comfortable. The rule this site works to explains why the awkward findings stay in.