The Supreme Court has reopened a long-running legal case involving e-commerce platform Snapdeal over the online sale of a prescription medicine. The case started in 2015 and has now reached an important stage after the apex court asked Snapdeal and its co-founders to respond to an appeal filed by the Karnataka government.
The case is not just about one online medicine sale. It raises a bigger question about whether online marketplaces can avoid legal responsibility when products sold through their platforms break public health laws. The Supreme Court’s final decision could have a major impact on India’s e-commerce and online pharmacy industry.
How the Case Started
The case began in 2015 when officials from Karnataka’s Drugs Control Department started checking whether prescription medicines were being sold online according to the law.
As part of the investigation, drug inspectors ordered Suhagra-100, a Schedule H prescription medicine that contains sildenafil and is used to treat erectile dysfunction. The medicine was sold by a third-party seller called M/s Herbal Healthcare through Snapdeal.
According to the authorities, the seller did not have a valid licence to sell the medicine. They also claimed that the medicine was delivered without asking the buyer to show a valid prescription from a registered doctor, even though it is legally required for such medicines.
After the purchase, a Drug Inspector filed a criminal complaint before a judicial magistrate in Belagavi. The magistrate accepted the complaint and issued summons to Snapdeal, its co-founders Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal, along with some other people linked to the case.
The complaint was filed under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, with offences punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act. The main allegation was that a prescription medicine was sold online without following the legal rules.
Snapdeal’s Safe Harbour Argument
Snapdeal challenged the criminal case by saying that it only works as an online marketplace. The company said it does not manufacture, own, stock, or directly sell medicines. Instead, it only connects buyers with independent sellers.
Based on this, Snapdeal claimed protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This section, known as the “safe harbour” provision, protects online platforms from being held responsible for the actions of third-party sellers if they have followed the required due diligence rules.
However, the Karnataka Drugs Control Department disagreed. The state government argued that online marketplaces should not get legal protection if their platforms are used to break public health laws. It said that allowing a prescription medicine to be sold without checking a valid prescription is a serious violation that can put public health at risk.
Instead of facing a full criminal trial, Snapdeal approached the Karnataka High Court and argued that the criminal case itself should not continue.
In 2022, the Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of Snapdeal. Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the criminal proceedings against the company and its directors. The court said the magistrate had not properly examined the case before issuing summons. It also ruled that Snapdeal, as an intermediary that had followed due diligence requirements, was protected under Section 79 of the IT Act and could not be held criminally responsible for the actions of an independent seller.
Supreme Court Takes Up the Matter Again
The Karnataka government challenged the High Court’s decision by filing a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. The government argued that the safe harbour provision under the IT Act should not protect online platforms when public health laws are violated.
According to the state, online marketplaces that allow the sale of prescription medicines must make sure all legal requirements are followed. It also claimed that Snapdeal did not meet its due diligence responsibilities because the medicine was sold without verifying a valid prescription.
On July 15, 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan issued a notice to Snapdeal and the other respondents, asking them to file their reply. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for August 10, 2026.
The case has taken almost 11 years to reach this stage. One reason for the long delay is that the courts first had to decide whether the criminal case against Snapdeal was legally valid before looking at the actual facts of the medicine sale. Like many legal cases in India, it also moved through different levels of the judicial system, adding to the delay.
The case has become even more important because India’s online healthcare and e-pharmacy sector has grown rapidly over the past decade. Recent controversies over online medicine delivery have increased concerns about patient safety and stronger regulation. Courts have also stressed that digital platforms must have proper systems in place to prevent illegal sales and remove unlawful listings when they are reported.
The Supreme Court’s final decision is expected to set an important legal precedent. If the court rules that safe harbour protection does not apply in cases involving public health laws, online marketplaces may have to introduce stricter checks before allowing the sale of regulated products such as prescription medicines.
With the next hearing set for August 10, the case will be closely watched by e-commerce companies, online pharmacy businesses, regulators, healthcare experts, and consumers. The judgment could shape the future of online medicine sales and define the legal responsibilities of digital marketplaces in India.