Author: kkslawoffices

In response to a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalises the offence of sedition, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) in July 2021 had questioned the Central Government whether the law was needed after 75 years of independence. The affidavit filed by the Central Government, in response to the question raised by the SC, said, “The Government of India being fully cognizant of various views being expressed on the subject of sedition and also having considered the concerns of civil liberties and human rights, while committed to maintain and protect the sovereignty and integrity of this great nation, has decided to re-examine and reconsider the provisions of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which can be done only before the competent forum“.

The judgment in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, which upheld the validity of Section 124A, was rendered by a 5-judge Constitution bench of the SC. Hence, as the matter is currently before a 3-judge bench, the SC is considering referring the matter to a Constitution bench of five or more judges.

After receiving complaints from the Coal India Limited, regarding the anti-competitive conduct of price collusion in tenders worth at least 20 billion rupees ($260 million) by engineering firms, the Competition Commission of India is conducting raids on these firms situated in Kolkata, Ranchi, and Dhanbad. The services rendered by the firms under investigation are related to extraction and transportation of coal.

The Bundeskartellamt, under the new provision of Section 19a of the German Competition Act (GWB), has formally determined that Meta Platforms, Inc., USA (formerly known as Facebook) is of paramount significance for competition across markets. The President of the Bundeskartellamt, Andreas Mundt, said “The digital ecosystem created by Meta has a very large user base and makes the company the key player in social media. Our investigations have shown that Meta is of paramount significance across markets, also within the meaning of competition law. Following a proceeding which was contested for some time, we have now formally proven the company’s relevant position. Based on this, we are able to intervene against potential competition infringements more efficiently than with the toolkit available to us so far. Meta has waived the right to appeal our decision.”

In a recent development, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) has held that nobody can be forced to mandatorily undergo vaccination, as the right to bodily integrity is a basic tenet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’) which includes the right to refuse vaccination. However, the SC did note that, the Government is entitled to impose restrictions on individual rights in interest of public health subject to the 3-fold test laid down in the Puttaswamy judgment i.e. legality, legitimate need and proportionality. The Court further observed that, “No data has been provided by the Union of India or States before us controverting the material placed by petitioner which indicates that the risk of transmission by unvaccinated is at par with vaccinated. In light of this, the vaccine mandates cannot be said to be proportionate till the infection rate remains low and new development of research emergence which justifies the mandate“

In an arbitration petition by Oyo Hotels And Homes Pvt. Ltd., the High Court of Delhi (‘DHC’) held that when a matter is referred to the Court under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’), it is not imperative that the Court goes into the merits of the claims, for appointment of an Arbitrator. The Court observed that, “In a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act, this Court is not to go into the merits of the claim or the counter-claim, if any, of the parties. This Court has to examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and there are any disputes unless ex-facie it is apparent from the record that the disputes are a mere deadwood.”

In a recent development, where a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) was filed before the Supreme Court (‘SC’) seeking a declaration that services performed by healthcare service providers are not included within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘The Act of 2019’), the SC, while dismissing the PIL as misconceived, held that doctors and healthcare services are not excluded from the ambit of the Act of 2019. The Court further observed that, “If at all the Parliament while repealing and replacing the 1986 Act with the 2019 Act had intended to give a meaning to the term “service” different from the one given by the Supreme Court, such intention ought to have been reflected in clear words by a specific exclusion of ‘health care’ from the purview of the 2019 Act. While construing a statute, what has not been said is equally important as what has been said.”

While considering an appeal filed by Meru Cab (‘Meru’), challenging the order of the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’), which dismissed its complaint alleging abuse of dominant position by Uber India, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) judge, Justice PS Narasimha, recused himself, citing his appearance for Uber India earlier, in another case as a lawyer. It was in 2015 that Meru approached the CCI; however, the CCI declined to intervene, observing that, “the facts and evidence on record do not establish the dominance of Uber”.

Two major domestic sellers – Cloudtail and Appario, listed on online retail giant, Amazon Inc., have come under Competition Commission of India’s (‘CCI’) radar, as CCI launches raids against them, over accusations of violation of the Competition Ac, 2002 (‘Act’). In a previous order, CCI has ordered investigation against the two online sellers – Amazon Inc. and Flipkart, for indulging in several anti-competitive practices inter alia deep discounting, Preferential Listing, Exclusive Tie-ups and Private Labels, on a prima facie view that the conduct resulted in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act read with Section 3(4) thereof.

In the case of Invest Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Girnar Fibres Ltd., the Supreme Court (‘SC’) observed that the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such. While noting that, “The intent of the appellant had only been to invoke the provisions of the Code so as to enforce recovery against the corporate debtor”, the SC dismissed the appeal.