Supreme Court to Hear Karnataka’s Challenge Over Online Sale of Erectile Dysfunction Drug on Snapdeal
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition filed by the Karnataka Government challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment that quashed criminal proceedings against e-commerce platform Snapdeal, its co-founders and other accused in a case involving the alleged online sale of a prescription-only erectile dysfunction medicine without a valid licence or a doctor’s prescription. The case is expected to have far-reaching implications for the liability of online marketplaces dealing with regulated products such as medicines.
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan issued notice on the State’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) as well as its application seeking condonation of delay. The Court has sought responses from the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing on August 10. At this stage, the Supreme Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute.
The dispute arises from allegations that Suhagra-100 Tablets, a Schedule H prescription drug used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, were sold through Snapdeal’s online marketplace by a third-party vendor, M/s Herbal Healthcare, without insisting on a valid prescription from a registered medical practitioner. The Karnataka Government alleges that the vendor also lacked the requisite licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, making the sale illegal.
Following an investigation, a Drugs Inspector filed a criminal complaint before a Judicial Magistrate in Belagavi, who took cognisance of the alleged offences and issued summons to Snapdeal, its directors and other accused. The accused subsequently approached the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
The Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the Magistrate’s order taking cognisance did not sufficiently demonstrate application of mind. It further ruled that Snapdeal, functioning as an intermediary operating an online marketplace, was entitled to the protection of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, commonly known as the “safe harbour” provision. According to the High Court, an intermediary cannot ordinarily be held criminally liable for the acts of an independent third-party seller after exercising the due diligence required by law.
Before the Supreme Court, the Karnataka Government has challenged this interpretation. Appearing for the State, Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar argued that Section 79 should not shield online intermediaries from prosecution under public health legislation such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The State further contended that even if the safe harbour provision is applicable, Snapdeal failed to discharge its due diligence obligations by permitting the sale of a prescription-only medicine without ensuring compliance with statutory licensing and prescription requirements.
The case is expected to address an important legal question concerning the extent of intermediary immunity under the Information Technology Act. The Supreme Court may have to determine whether e-commerce platforms merely facilitate transactions between independent sellers and buyers or whether they owe an enhanced duty of care where the products involved are regulated medicines requiring statutory licences and medical prescriptions. The decision could significantly influence the compliance obligations of online marketplaces dealing in pharmaceuticals and other regulated goods.
Legal experts believe the outcome may shape the future relationship between Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and sector-specific regulatory statutes such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. A ruling narrowing the scope of intermediary immunity in cases involving public health could require e-commerce platforms to strengthen vendor verification, prescription checks and regulatory compliance mechanisms for online medicine sales. The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, is likely to have implications extending well beyond the parties to the present litigation.
