Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order dated 13.12.2021 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.14453 of 2021, titled 'Pintu v. State of Haryana & Others'. The High Court, while dealing with a petition seeking directions to police authorities, made tentative observations against the OLX Group and issued interim directions requiring all advertisements on the OLX platform to be deleted and re-listed only with attached PDF files containing detailed personal and property information, including ID proofs, mobile number verifications, title documents, and certificates from local authorities. The appellant, OLX India B.V., challenged these directions, arguing that as an internet platform or intermediary, it is not liable to guarantee the quality or genuineness of goods sold and cannot certify deals. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard arguments from the appellant's senior advocate and the state's additional advocate general, with the original petitioner not appearing. The court noted that the matter is pending before the High Court and thus refrained from addressing the substantive submissions on intermediary liability, leaving those issues for the High Court to decide. However, regarding the interim directions, the court held that there was no occasion for the High Court to pass such directions, especially without hearing the appellant. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the interim directions, allowing the appeal to that extent, while preserving the appellant's right to raise all issues before the High Court in the ongoing proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Directions - Quashing of Directions Without Hearing - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - High Court issued interim directions requiring online marketplace to attach detailed documents to advertisements without hearing the marketplace - Supreme Court held there was no occasion for such directions and quashed them as they were passed without hearing the affected party - Matter left for High Court to consider on merits (Paras 10-12). B) Information Technology Law - Intermediary Liability - Scope of Liability for Online Platforms - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Appellant argued as an internet platform/intermediary, it is not liable to guarantee quality or genuineness of goods sold - Supreme Court did not decide this issue but allowed appellant to agitate it before High Court - Interim directions quashed without prejudice to merits (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in issuing interim directions against an online marketplace without hearing it, imposing requirements for advertisements on its platform
Final Decision
Appeal allowed to extent of quashing interim directions passed by High Court; matter left for High Court to consider on merits
Law Points
- Interim directions must not be issued without hearing the affected party
- intermediaries are not liable to guarantee quality or genuineness of goods sold on their platforms
- courts should avoid passing orders that impose undue burdens on intermediaries without proper consideration
