Amit Shukla vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which were notified on July 23, 2020, adequately cover the prayers made by the Petitioner in the writ petition. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's order in a similar matter (W.P.(C) 617/2021) which had disposed of the petition on the basis of these rules. The judgment highlights that Rule 3(1)(d) defines 'GSTIN' and Rule 3(h) defines 'PAN', and importantly, Rule 4(d) mandates sellers to provide their legal name, principal address, website details, email, customer care contact, and where applicable, GSTIN and PAN details. Furthermore, Rule 5(d) specifically requires sellers offering goods or services through a marketplace e-commerce entity to provide "all relevant details about the goods and services offered for sale by the seller including country of origin which are necessary for enabling the consumer to make an informed decision at the prepurchase stage." Given the existence and scope of these rules, the Court found no further orders to be required in the instant writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of.

Facts

The Petitioner, a practicing advocate, filed a writ petition seeking directions for e-commerce websites to display the manufacturing country of products and comply with the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The Petitioner also prayed for e-commerce entities to prominently display a "Made in India" option or prioritize Indian products in search results. The Respondent No. 4 drew the Court's attention to a similar petition, W.P.(C) 617/2021, filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had disposed of that petition by noting the notification of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which addressed the prayers made by the Petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, notified on July 23, 2020, adequately address the prayers made by the Petitioner concerning the display of the country of origin on e-commerce platforms and compliance with relevant laws, thereby rendering further orders in this writ petition unnecessary? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner sought directions for e-commerce entities to display the manufacturing country of products, ensure compliance with the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and either provide a "Made in India" option or prioritize Indian products in search results. Respondent's Arguments (as inferred from the judgment): The Respondent No. 4 pointed to the Supreme Court's disposal of a similar petition based on the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, implying that these rules provide the necessary framework and remedies for the Petitioner's concerns.