The Supreme Court has sought Snapdeal’s response to a challenge by the Karnataka government against the quashing of criminal proceedings linked to the online sale of an erectile dysfunction medicine.
The dispute centres on the listing and sale of Suhagra-100 Tablets, a prescription drug used to treat erectile dysfunction. The State alleges that the medicine was sold through Snapdeal by a third-party vendor without a valid drug licence and without obtaining a doctor’s prescription.
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan issued notice on July 15 on Karnataka’s plea challenging a Karnataka High Court order that had brought the criminal case against Snapdeal and its directors, Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal, to an end.
The Supreme Court also agreed to examine the State’s request for condonation of delay in filing the challenge. The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 10.
The case began after an online purchase was made through Snapdeal for Suhagra-100 Tablets. According to the prosecution, the product was sold by third-party seller M/s Herbal Healthcare, which allegedly did not hold the required licence to sell the medicine. The State further alleged that the Schedule H drug was supplied without a prescription, contrary to the requirements under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
A drugs inspector subsequently filed a complaint before a judicial magistrate in Belagavi, alleging violations of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The magistrate took cognisance of the complaint and summoned Snapdeal, its directors and other accused persons.
Snapdeal and its directors then approached the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the proceedings.
The High Court had found that the magistrate’s order did not demonstrate sufficient application of mind. It also held that Snapdeal, as an online marketplace intermediary, could claim safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, provided it complied with the prescribed due-diligence requirements.
The court had further observed that an e-commerce intermediary could not ordinarily be held responsible for the independent actions or omissions of third-party sellers using its platform.
Karnataka has now challenged that reasoning before the Supreme Court.
The State has argued that the protection available under Section 79 of the IT Act cannot automatically prevent prosecution under separate laws dealing with drugs, public health and safety. It has also contended that Snapdeal may not be entitled to safe-harbour protection if it failed to meet the statutory due-diligence requirements while allowing the sale of a prescription medicine online.
The Supreme Court’s notice marks the next stage in a case that could examine the extent to which online marketplaces can rely on intermediary protection when regulated medicines are allegedly sold through their platforms in breach of drug laws.
