Supreme Court Seeks Response from Snapdeal
The Supreme Court of India has requested a reply from Snapdeal following a petition by the Karnataka government. The appeal challenges the Karnataka High Court’s decision to dismiss criminal proceedings against Snapdeal and its executives concerning the sale of a regulated drug on its platform without the necessary prescriptions or licenses. The case is officially titled State of Karnataka v. Kunal Bahl & Ors.
High Court Ruling Under Challenge
A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan issued a notice to Snapdeal on July 15. The petition filed by the Karnataka government disputes the High Court’s judgment that nullified criminal charges against Snapdeal’s directors, Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal. The Bench instructed, “Issue notice both on the Special Leave Petition as well as on the application seeking condonation of delay.”
Allegations Against Snapdeal
The controversy centers around Suhagra Tablets, a medication for erectile dysfunction, reportedly sold through Snapdeal’s platform. This prescription drug, classified under Schedule H, necessitates a doctor’s prescription. Allegedly, M/s Herbal Healthcare, a third-party vendor on Snapdeal, sold the drug without a valid license and prescription, contravening the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Following the transaction, a drug inspector filed a criminal complaint in the Belagavi judicial magistrate’s court, citing violations of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
High Court’s Justification
The Karnataka High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, asserting that the magistrate’s cognizance lacked proper consideration. It further upheld Snapdeal’s entitlement to safe harbor protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, given that the platform acted with required due diligence. The Court concluded that Snapdeal, as an intermediary, could not be held liable for third-party vendor actions on its platform.
Karnataka Government’s Argument
Discontent with the High Court’s ruling, the Karnataka government moved to the Supreme Court. Additional Advocate General (AAG) Aman Panwar argued that the High Court improperly extended the Information Technology Act’s Section 79 protections to cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He contended that safe harbor provisions should not exempt intermediaries from accountability under laws safeguarding public health. Furthermore, he claimed Snapdeal failed to meet the due diligence obligations under Section 79(2)(c) by enabling the online sale of a prescription drug.
More Read
Further Proceedings
After reviewing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued a notice to Snapdeal and other respondents, scheduling further hearings for August 10. AAG Aman Panwar, alongside advocates Manav Kaushik and Sanchit Garga, represented Karnataka. Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for the respondents.
