A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan issued the notice on July 15 while hearing the State’s special leave petition against a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed the criminal case against Snapdeal, its co-founders Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal, and others, Bar And Bench reported.
The court directed, “Issue notice both on the Special Leave Petition as well as on the application seeking condonation of delay.”
The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 10.
Case relates to sale of prescription medicine
The case concerns the alleged sale of Suhagra-100 Tablets through Snapdeal’s online marketplace.
Suhagra is a Schedule H prescription medicine used to treat erectile dysfunction in men and can only be sold on the prescription of a registered medical practitioner.
According to the prosecution, an online order for the medicine was placed through Snapdeal’s platform, where it was sold by a third-party vendor, M/s Herbal Healthcare.
The Karnataka government alleged that the seller did not possess a valid licence to sell the medicine and supplied the drug without requiring a doctor’s prescription, violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Following the transaction, a Drugs Inspector filed a criminal complaint before a judicial magistrate in Belagavi, who took cognisance of the case and issued summons to Snapdeal, its directors and other accused.
ALSO READ: Why CCPA Fined Snapdeal Rs 5 Lakh Over Non-BIS Toys
High Court quashed criminal proceedings
Snapdeal and its directors challenged the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the criminal case.
The High Court held that the magistrate’s order did not adequately demonstrate application of mind while taking cognisance of the complaint.
It also ruled that Snapdeal, as an intermediary operating an online marketplace, was entitled to safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, after exercising the due diligence required under the law.
The High Court observed that an e-commerce platform could not be held criminally liable for the actions or omissions of an independent third-party seller using its marketplace.
Karnataka challenges safe harbour protection
Challenging the High Court’s decision, the Karnataka government argued before the Supreme Court that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act should not shield online intermediaries from prosecution under other laws designed to protect public health.
Appearing for the State, Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar submitted that the High Court had wrongly extended safe harbour protection to a prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
He further argued that even if Section 79 were applicable, Snapdeal had failed to fulfil its due diligence obligations by allowing the online sale of a prescription medicine without ensuring compliance with legal requirements.
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice to Snapdeal and the other respondents and sought their response.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for the respondents, while Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar, along with advocates Manav Kaushik and Sanchit Garga, represented the State of Karnataka. The case will next be heard on August 10.
Also Read: Supreme Court Warns Of ‘Zero Tolerance’ For AI Hallucinations In Courtrooms
