The Karnataka government has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the quashing of criminal proceedings against Snapdeal and its co-founders, Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal, over the alleged sale of erectile dysfunction pills on its platform without a valid licence or a prescription.
What are the allegations against Snapdeal? The Karnataka government alleges that a third-party seller sold Suhagra-100 tablets through Snapdeal’s online marketplace, despite not having a valid licence, and supplied the drug without requiring a doctor’s prescription, as per a Bar and Bench report.
- Suhagra is a Schedule H prescription medicine used to treat erectile dysfunction in men and can only be sold by retail on the prescription of a registered medical practitioner. The third-party vendor in question is Herbal Healthcare.
- Snapdeal, its co-founders, and Herbal are accused of enabling and supplying a drug in contravention of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
The core dispute in the Snapdeal case: The Karnataka government, in its appeal to the Supreme Court, has raised two primary concerns:
1. Safe harbour protection should not override public health laws. The Karnataka government argues that Section 79 of the IT Act should not automatically shield online intermediaries from prosecution under other laws, specifically those designed to protect public health, such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. Snapdeal allegedly failed to exercise due diligence. Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar, appearing for the Karnataka government, argued that the Karnataka High Court had previously wrongly extended safe harbour protection to a prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
- He further argued that even if Section 79 of the IT Act were to apply, Snapdeal had failed to fulfil its due diligence obligations by allowing online sale of a prescription drug without ensuring compliance with legal requirements.
- After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued a notice to Snapdeal and other co-accused in the case and sought their response. The matter has listed for next hearing on August 10.
What did the Karnataka HC say earlier? It is to be noted that the Karnataka High Court had quashed criminal proceedings against Snapdeal and its co-founders in this case in 2021, ruling that:
- Snapdeal, as an intermediary operating an online marketplace, was entitled to safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act.
- It had exercised the required due diligence.
- An intermediary and its directors cannot be held criminally liable for any action or inaction of a third-party vendor/seller.
MediaNama’s take: This case should serve as a reminder to all the online platforms like Flipkart, Amazon, Tata 1mg and Snapdeal which still operate in a regulatory grey zone in India. The country has no specific law to regulate online sale and distribution of medicines…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
