Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Ensure Display of Manufacturing Country’s Name on Products Being Sold on E-Commerce Websites

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

The Delhi High Court issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed. This was to ensure that a manufacturing country’s name was displayed on products being sold on E-Commerce websites.

Brief Facts of the Case

China had caused several disruptions to not only India but the entire world through the Coronavirus inducement. Thus, the Indian Government had been taking several initiatives to boycott Chinese products and to promote Indian products. Several Chinese apps were also banned from being used in India. Therefore, in the current situation, Mr. Amit Shukla had filed a Public Interest Litigation. This was to ensure that e-commerce websites would include the manufacturing country’s name on all their products. The Court issued a notice with regards to this PIL on 1st July 2020 (Amit Shukla vs UOI & Ors.).

Contentions

The petitioner prefers this PIL on the basis of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, in view of Rules 6 and 10. This states that all E-Commerce entities are mandated to publish the name of the products’ country of origin/ manufacturer on their platform. He contended that the same was yet to be enforced qua E-Commerce companies.

“Most Indians want to buy Indian products now… (one) should know what he is buying from E-Commerce websites.”

He stated that some E-Commerce companies do mention the country of manufacturing on products. But they do so in a discreet manner which would not be easily searchable by the
consumers at large. The petitioner also pointed out to the recent notification of the Central Government. It mentioned that all the sellers on the Government E-Marketplace (GeM) should also mandatorily enter their country of origin. They should also do so while registering new products for sale on the platform.

“Because the citizens of the country particularly in view of the tensions in the border and aggression of the neighbour intend to buy any products originating from the neighbour (Republic of China). It submitted that the heavy export is the backbone of the Republic of China and in the event, India is self-reliant, the same would strengthen the defence services in-turn boosting the strength of the nation.”

The PIL sought direction to the Court to ensure that E-Commerce entities publish or display the ‘Made in India’ option separately and conspicuously. The petitioner also sought a direction to the Centre to ensure compliance of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 in the capacity of E-Commerce website.

Court’s Decision

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan heard the case. They issued notice to the Central Government and E-Commerce platforms. Some of the platforms were Amazon, Nykaa, Snapdeal, etc.

The next hearing would be on 22nd July 2020.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News,InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -