Supreme Court Requests Snapdeal's Response in Prescription Drug Case

New Delhi, India Jul 18, 2026 ALN: The Supreme Court of India has recently taken a significant step in a case involving Snapdeal, one of the country's leading e-commerce platforms, by requesting responses from the company and its directors regarding a plea from the Karnataka government. This plea challenges a previous order from the Karnataka High Court, which quashed criminal proceedings against Snapdeal concerning the alleged illegal sale of a prescription drug through its platform.

The case at hand revolves around the sale of Suhagra-100, a medication classified under Schedule H, which is used primarily for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. The drug is regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which mandates that such medications can only be dispensed with a valid prescription from a licensed medical practitioner. The prosecution claims that Suhagra-100 was sold by a third-party seller, M/s Herbal Healthcare, on Snapdeal's platform without a valid drug license and without requiring a doctor's prescription, thereby violating established regulations.

In 2019, a drugs inspector took action by filing a criminal complaint against Snapdeal and its directors, Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal, among others, before a judicial magistrate in Belagavi. The magistrate accepted the complaint and summoned the involved parties, which set off a legal chain reaction. Snapdeal and its directors subsequently contested the proceedings in the Karnataka High Court, which, in February 2022, ruled in their favor by quashing the criminal case. The High Court determined that the magistrate's order did not sufficiently demonstrate the application of legal reasoning required to proceed with the case.

One of the pivotal points in the High Court's ruling was the interpretation of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides safe harbour protection to online intermediaries. This protection means that platforms like Snapdeal cannot be held liable for the actions of third-party sellers as long as they act as neutral intermediaries and adhere to due diligence requirements. The court found that Snapdeal had not actively participated in any unlawful activity and was therefore entitled to this protection.

However, the Karnataka government has now escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the safe harbour provisions under the IT Act should not shield intermediaries from legal responsibilities under laws designed to protect public health. This argument underscores a critical tension between the regulatory frameworks governing e-commerce and public health safety standards. The government’s position, articulated by additional advocate general Aman Panwar, is that Snapdeal did not fulfill its due diligence obligations as outlined in Section 79(2)(c) of the IT Act, particularly by allowing the sale of a prescription drug without appropriate safeguards.

The implications of this case are profound, as it may set a precedent for how e-commerce platforms operate within the legal frameworks of various sectors, particularly those involving health and safety. The outcome could clarify the extent to which online marketplaces can rely on intermediary protection when third-party sellers violate specific regulations that govern the sale of controlled substances. This is particularly pressing in a country like India, where the burgeoning e-commerce sector faces increasing scrutiny regarding compliance with existing laws.

As e-commerce continues to grow, the intersection of technology and law becomes increasingly complex. The rise of online shopping has transformed consumer behavior, with a growing number of individuals opting for the convenience of purchasing goods from the comfort of their homes. However, this convenience comes with challenges, especially when it involves sensitive products such as pharmaceuticals. The legal discourse surrounding this case reflects broader concerns about consumer safety, the responsibilities of online platforms, and the enforcement of regulatory measures in a digital marketplace.

Snapdeal, like many other e-commerce platforms, operates in a highly competitive environment where the balance between facilitating sales and ensuring compliance with legal standards is delicate. The ruling from the Karnataka High Court initially provided a sense of security to Snapdeal, indicating that they were not liable for the actions of third-party sellers. However, the Karnataka government's appeal to the Supreme Court highlights the ongoing debate about the responsibilities of online marketplaces. It raises questions about whether existing laws are sufficient to protect consumers in the digital age and whether additional regulations are necessary to ensure that platforms take proactive measures to prevent the sale of illegal or harmful products.

The scrutiny that e-commerce platforms face regarding compliance with drug laws and consumer safety regulations is not limited to Snapdeal. Other major players in the industry are likely watching this case closely, as its outcome could influence their operational policies and compliance strategies. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Karnataka government, it may lead to stricter regulations and oversight for e-commerce platforms, compelling them to implement more rigorous checks on third-party sellers and the products they offer.

The implications of the case extend beyond legal ramifications; they also touch on public health concerns. The sale of prescription drugs without appropriate safeguards poses a significant risk to consumers. There are potential health implications when individuals obtain medications without the guidance of a healthcare professional. This case could serve as a catalyst for broader discussions about the responsibilities of e-commerce platforms in safeguarding public health, particularly as they expand into sectors that require stringent regulations.

As the case progresses, it will likely draw attention to the responsibilities of e-commerce platforms in ensuring that products sold on their sites comply with legal and safety standards. The outcome may influence how other e-commerce companies approach compliance with drug laws and consumer safety regulations, potentially leading to changes in operational policies across the industry. Companies may need to invest in better compliance mechanisms, including more thorough vetting processes for third-party sellers and clearer guidelines for permissible products.

The Supreme Court's involvement in this case underscores the critical intersection of technology, law, and public health in the digital age. As e-commerce continues to transform the retail landscape, the legal frameworks governing these platforms will need to adapt to ensure that consumer safety remains a top priority while fostering innovation and growth in the sector. The case is being closely monitored not just by legal experts and industry stakeholders but also by consumers who rely on e-commerce for access to medicines and healthcare products. The hearing has been scheduled for August 10, alongside a similar case, indicating that the Supreme Court is keen to address these pressing legal questions promptly.

In conclusion, the ongoing legal proceedings involving Snapdeal and the Karnataka government highlight the complexities of regulating e-commerce in a rapidly evolving digital marketplace. As the case unfolds, it will likely serve as a pivotal moment for the future of online commerce in India, setting important precedents for how e-commerce platforms navigate their responsibilities in ensuring consumer safety while balancing the need for innovation and growth in the industry.