Jago Grahak Jago

The Supreme Court on Friday warned the Indian Army of contempt action in a contempt plea against Army Chief of Staff MM Naravane over the alleged delay in grant of permanent commission to women officers in army. “The army might be supreme in its own right but the constitutional court is equally supreme,” remarked Justice DY Chandrachud, while presiding over the bench also consisting of Justice AS Bopanna. On October 8, the Top Court had asked Centre to resolve the issue pertaining to denial of grant of permanent commission “at their end” in a plea filed by 72 Women Army officers alleging that they have been denied permanent commission even after obtaining 60% marks. ASG Sanjay Jain informed Court today that the issue in the current context is of 11 women officers and against 8 of them, complaints were pending. In effect, he was apprising the court of the reason as to why their grant has not taken place within permanent commissions. “There reports are confidential. A senior officer from Army has been sent physically to the Supreme court with the copies of the confidential reports to show the Judges. The case has been put up for hearing at 2 PM now. On the last date of hearing, ASG Sanjay Jain appearing for the Chief of Army Staff submitted that they had filed an affidavit laying down as to why Permanent Commission was denied and it clearly indicates that the Conduct of the lady officers was considered while rejecting grant of Permanent Commission. However, Justice Chandrachud said, “we had said that all the women who cleared 60% shall be given a permanent commission, you can’t now say 60% + fitness + Conduct, resolve it from your end so we can close the contempt.” Earlier, the Court had asked the Central Government to hold the immediate release of 72 Women Army officers while directing the office of Additional Solicitor General and Defence Ministry to file a detailed affidavit explaining the position. “We respect the Army but the issue of vigilance and discipline will come later,” Justice Chandrachud added. ASG Jain, after consulting with Senior Advocate Col R Balasubramanium said that they will come back to the Court on this. Some background in the plea filed by Lt. Col Nitisha dictates passing of an order by the Apex Court laying down the following, Administrative requirement by the Army authorities of benchmarking eligible SSC Officers for grant of Permanent Commission, with the officers lowest in merit in the corresponding male batch, held arbitrary and irrational. All women officers who have fulfilled the cut-off grade of 60% in the Special No. 5 Selection Board held in September 2020 shall be entitled to the grant of Permanent Commission, subject to medical criteria and disciplinary/vigilance clearance.” Case Title: Nilam Gorwade and Ors. Vs. Manoj Mukund Naravane and Ors. and Other Connected Matters. Source: lawbeat.in

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 [RERA] is retroactive in its application and covers all ongoing projects for which completion certificate has not been issued, the Supreme Court has held (Newtech Promoters and Developers Limited v. State of UP). A Bench of Justice UU Lalit, Ajay Rastogi and Aniruddha Bose held that by enacting the RERA, Parliament intended to bring within the fold of the statute ongoing real estate projects in its wide ambit to protect the interests of consumers/homebuyers. “Looking at the scheme of Act 2016 and Section 3 in particular of which a detailed discussion has been made, all “ongoing projects” that commence prior to the Act and in respect to which completion certificate has not been issued are covered under the Act. It manifests that the legislative intent is to make the Act applicable not only to the projects which were yet to commence after the Act became operational but also to bring under its fold the ongoing projects….” the Court held. From the scheme of the RERA, its application is retroactive in character, the Court said. “The clear and unambiguous language of the statute is retroactive in operation and by applying purposive interpretation rule of statutory construction, only one result is possible, i.e., the legislature consciously enacted a retroactive statute to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, real estate project is done in an efficient and transparent manner so that the interest of consumers in the real estate sector is protected by all means,” the Court held. The intention of the legislature by necessary implication and without any ambiguity is to include those projects which were ongoing and for which completion certificate has not been issued, the Bench added. “It can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the on­going projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 2016,” the Court made it clear. Pertinently, the Court also held that power to direct return/refund of the amount to the allottee under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Act lies with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking relief of compensation and interest thereon under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, the adjudicating officer exclusively has the power to determine the same. The judgment was passed in an appeal filed by real estate company, Newtech Promoters and Developers against an order of a single member of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority). As per this order, the appellant company was directed to refund the principal amount along with interest to homebuyers who were not delivered flats on time. Ordinarily, orders passed by the Authority are appealable under Section 43(5) of the Act, provided the statutory compliance of pre­-deposit is made under proviso to Section 43(5) before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the promoter/real estate developers approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution questioning the order. They argued that it was without jurisdiction as it was passed by a single member of the authority, who according to the appellants, holds no jurisdiction to pass such orders of refund of the amount as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the plea, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed the following legal issues and answered them: 1) Whether the Act 2016 is retrospective or retroactive in its operation and what will be its legal consequence if tested on the anvil of the Constitution of India? In answering this question, the top court noted that it had in its earlier judgment in Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills v. Union of India and Others explained the distinction between retrospective and retroactive application of statutes. In that judgment, it was held: “‘Retrospective’ means looking backward, contemplating what is past, having reference to a statute or things existing before the statute in question. Retrospective law means a law which looks backward or contemplates the past; one, which is made to affect acts or facts occurring, or rights occurring, before it comes into force. Retroactive statute means a statute, which creates a new obligation on transactions or considerations or destroys or impairs vested rights.” Further, the Bench also noted that the apex court in Shanti Conductors Private Limited and Another v. Assam State Electricity Board and Others held: “Retroactivity in the context of the statute consists of application of new rule of law to an act or transaction which has been completed before the rule was promulgated.” In the instant case, the Court noted that the term ‘ongoing projects’ has not been defined in RERA. However, Section 2(zn) defines ‘real estate project’ which includes ongoing real estate projects. Further, Rule 2(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016 defines ‘ongoing project’ as a project where all development works have been completed and application has been filed with the competent authority for issue of completion certificate. Thus, looking into the scheme of RERA, it covers all ongoing projects in respect of which completion certificate has not been issued and is retroactive in its application. In such cases, contractual terms between the homebuyer and real estate developer will not override the retroactive applicability of the Act, the Court said. 2) Whether the authority has jurisdiction to direct return/refund of the amount to the allottee under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Act or the jurisdiction exclusively lies with the adjudicating officer under Section 71 of the Act? The Court, after examining the scheme of the Act and relevant provisions, ruled that the opening words of Section 71(1) of the Act made it clear that the scope and functions of

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in its reply affidavit to the challenge to the provisions of Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) has alleged that many child care institutions in the country are being run illegally and are receiving funds from certain suspicious foreign organisation. A Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Ravi Kumar reserved this batch of petition for orders on 9th November 2021. These batch of petitions challenge the validity of section 7 of the FCRA act, which prohibits the transfer of foreign funds.  Section 12A which provides for aadhaar as an identification for prior approval and registration. Section 17 which mandates opening of FCRA primary account exclusively in a branch of State Bank of India in New Delhi notified by the Centre. The NCPCR has filed its reply in one case among the batch titled Vinay Vinayak Joshi Vs Union of India. The reply states that the affidavit is being filed to bring on record the work done by NCPCR to stop misuse of foreign funds by NGOs. It further states that there are NGOs without FCRA registration and they are being funded by NGOs with the registration upon receiving foreign funds. According to the reply an NGO named “Centre for Equity Studies,” (an NGO run at behest of Harsh Mander) which has FCRA registration and receives foreign funds and further gives it to NGOs namely Rainbow Foundation India, which runs Child Care Institutions (CCI) in various cities in India without having an FCRA registration. It is alleged that during the inspection of CCIs in Delhi, NCPCR has found non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act in addition to many incidences of offence under POCSO Act. The reply states that Rainbow Foundation India had informed them that the Ummed Aman Ghar in Delhi is jointly managed and funded by them and Centre for Equity Studies and an FIR has been registered by the police against these institutions. The reply further states that matters related to inspection of these CCIs are pending before the Delhi High Court. According to the reply, the NCPCR conducted inspection of 3 CCIs running under the Rainbow Homes Program and that they have been informed by the Chennai Police that an FIR has been registered against these CCIs. The reply states that they have written to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to look into foreign funds received by “Centre for Equity Studies” and “Arun” and how they have been utilised. The reply states that NCPCR conducted inspection of 5 children homes in Assam and Manipur which were being run by Markaz-ul-Maarif and the inspector team got to know that the children in these homes had not been produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) as prescribed under law and they have been living there without the orders of CWC. According to the reply, these homes have been receiving funds from certain foreign agencies in addition to receiving government grants. According to the reply, it was found during the inspection that a home called Markaz Darul Yatama Home, Dhurbi has been receiving funds from a Turkey based organisation called IHH. The Turkish law officers interrogated IHH and found out that it is linked with international organisation. The reply states that an FIR has been registered by Assam Police against Markaz Darul Yatama for Boys and Hojai. According to the reply, NCPCR inspected CCI run by Asha Deep Foundation, Ghaziabad in November 2019 and found that their registration had been canceled and only a school hostel was supposed to be functioning in the premises. It further states that on inspection of the rooms/lockers around 26 Bibles were retrieved from children belonging to Hindu and Muslim community and that the officials of the NGO failed to show consent of family members of the children for imparting such religious education. The reply states that this prima facie indication that forceful religious conversion of children was taking place in violation of Article 28(3) of the Constitution of India and an FIR has been registered against them. According to the reply according to various statements made by the children to the CWC, the children had been illegally confined to their rooms, maltreated, beaten and have been deprived of proper food and education. The reply further states that the children were also forced to recite Christian prayers and worship a particular deity against their will and were being forced to convert to another religion. According to the reply, the NCPCR has also received complaints wherein serious allegations have been made against Nalgonda Diocese Society, Telangana of indulging in forceful religious conversion of minors staying in their homes. It has also been alleged there are illegal activities taking place in the orphanages sponsored by the organisation and that the complainant had also provided a letter between the organisation and Mgr Joseph Chevalier Foundation, Quebec for sponsorship. Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi is appearing for the NCPC in the plea. Case Title:  Vinay Vinayak Joshi Vs Union of India & Ors.  Source: Lawbeat.in

While dealing with a case concerning the issue of trademark infringement and comparative advertising, the Delhi High Court observed that advertisers have to be given enough room to play with an advertisement and the plaintiff should not be hypersensitive towards it. As per the court, in comparative advertising, it is permissible to compare one’s goods with that of another to establish superiority. However, the court clarified that a person can’t say that the good is inferior, undesirable or bad as that would amount to defaming the good of the other. Justice Jayant Nath was dealing with a plea seeking interim injunction filed by a company that manufactures toilet cleaner under the trademark HARPIC. The case was filed against a company called DOMEX. Before the Court, the plaintiff said that defendants in their advertisements claimed that HARPC is ineffective and useless in cleaning toilets. It is further stated due to the advertisements customers have shifted to DOMEX. The plaintiff requested the court to direct the defendant to not publish or broadcast such advertisements on social media, print and television. After hearing the submissions, the court said there were some grey areas in the advertisements but they cannot be taken as a necessary representation of facts. The Bench opined that in comparative advertising comparative own product to that of competitor is permissible. However, while referring to three other ads out of five, the court noted that the bottle shown in those ads is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs packaging. Therefore, the court restrained the defendants from airing four advertisements and noted they cannot be allowed to disparage or denigrate a rival’s product. Read Full Judgement:  Source: lawtrend.in

Builders can’t get away by handing over maintenance & administration of housing society to the residents’ welfare association if the project remains unfinished without all infrastructure & facilities promised to the homebuyers & will need to compensate the RWAs, the Apex Court said. Almost eighteen years after a builder handed over a housing project in Noida to the residents’ association, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta & V Ramasubramanian directed the company, Padmini Infrastructure, to pay Rs 60 lakh to the Royal Garden RWA for not building a water softening plant, a second health club & a swimming pool in addition to putting in place a firefighting system. The long legal battle reflects issues faced by residents in such societies across the country & will be a boost for homebuyers, even though more recent state RERA laws cover some of the aspects relating to defaults on promised facilities. Such disputes between RWAs & builders, some going back several years, continue to clog courts & consumer forums. The real estate company constructed the housing project with 282 apartments & possession was given from 1998-2001. The purchasers formed an RWA & got it registered in 2003 under the Societies Registration Act. The RWA entered into an agreement on Nov 2003 with the builder for taking over maintenance of the apartment complex. As the builder did not fulfil promises made in the agreement, the RWA approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which appointed a local commissioner to visit the site & file a report. On the basis of the report, NCDRC allowed the plea of the association. A decade after entertaining the plea, the Court directed that the sum be handed over to the association & brought the 18-year-old legal fight to an end. The Court turned down the plea of the company that the association was barred by limitation to raise grievances & passed the order by accepting the report of the local commissioner. Observing that the association was handed over maintenance of the housing society eighteen years ago, the court said it might not be possible to compel the builder to make those facilities or systems fully operational now & the interests of justice will be met if the order of the National Commission is modified in such a manner that the complainant association shall receive in full & final settlement. The Bench stated that “The complainant shall be entitled to all told monetary compensation in a sum of Rs 60 lakh, now lying in deposit with the Registry of this court, together with the interest accrued thereon, in lieu of the reliefs sought in prayer of the complaint. The opposite party (builder) shall, within two weeks, remove all building material stored by them in the club house in the basement of Tower Eden & hand over possession of the club house to the complainant”. Source: LatestLaws.com

BENGALURU: The state consumer court has upheld a district consumer forum direction to an insurer to clear a Bengaluru woman’s Rs 1.4 lakh insurance claim towards her stolen motorcycle. The insurer had turned down her claim, saying the vehicle’s insurance policy was still in the name of the first owner and hadn’t been transferred to her. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Ltd had appealed against a Bengaluru district consumer forum’s June 30, 2020 verdict ordering that the insured value of the vehicle — Rs 1,37,824 — be paid with interest to Sheela Shantharaj, 57, of Kuvempunagar, apart from Rs 10,000 towards damages and Rs 5,000 towards litigation cost. Sheela purchased a Bajaj KTM Duke 200 motorcycle on April 27, 2017 from its original owner Mahesh P by paying Rs 1.5 lakh. On June 2, 2017, the motorcycle was stolen from her residence and she lodged a complaint with Chandra Layout police. With the vehicle carrying an active insurance policy in the name of the original owner till September 26, 2017, Sheela approached the insurer, Liberty Videocon General Insurance Ltd, for a claim for the stolen bike. But despite an active policy in place, the insurance firm turned down her claim, stating that the vehicle was yet to be transferred in her name and she had failed to apply for an insurance transfer till the time of theft. Next, the woman approached a local consumer court, which ruled in her favour. It ordered the firm to pay Rs 15,000 compensation for the delay, apart from granting her the insurance claim of Rs 1,37,824. Claiming that the local court erred in its judgment, Liberty Videocon General Insurance appealed to Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on October 22, 2020. The judges, however, noted that on the date of theft, the vehicle was under insurance cover and the complainant intimated the firm for settlement of the claim and also lodged a police complaint. Further, she had requested the RTO for transfer of vehicle ownership and the stand taken by the insurer that there is no privity of contract between her and them cannot be accepted and they cannot repudiate the claim of the transferee, as there was still an active insurance coverage. The judges further observed that though the woman hadn’t given any application to the opposite party, she had indeed applied to the RTO for transfer. Hence, there was no negligence on her part as long as a valid insurance cover was present, either in the name of the original owner, or in the name of the transferee. In the circumstances, denial of claim money is illegal and the order passed by the district commission is upheld, the judges stated in their ruling on September 7, 2021. Source: Times Of India

The district consumer and redressal forum, Kapurthala, has directed the National Insurance Company, a private insurance firm, to pay ₹8 lakh compensation to a private bus owner for damages to his vehicle. The complainant, Jaskirat Singh Chahal, had said his bus was totally burnt after it caught fire due to short circuit in 2010. Later, the insurance firm deputed a surveyor who assessed the loss and sent a report the company in 2011. The firm did not give him claim and instead closed the case in 2013, Chahal said. “It clearly proves that the company without caring for the insurance contract and equity and principles of natural justice refused to reopen the case despite having received all information from me,” the complainant had submitted. Source: HindustanTimes

Consumers in India experienced a relatively high scam encounter rate of 69 per cent in the last 12 months according to Microsoft’s 2021 Global Tech Support Scam Research report. The report looks at tech support scams and their impact on consumers. Consumers in India who lost money to such scams in 2021 lost ₹15,334 on average. Findings showed that almost half of consumers surveyed in India (48 per cent) were tricked into continuing with the scam — an eight-point increase from 2018, and three times higher than the global average (16 per cent). One in three (31 per cent) of those surveyed continued engaging and eventually lost money, an increase of 17 points compared with 2018 (14 per cent). In contrast, there was an overall five-point drop in scam encounters globally with a rate of 59 per cent over the same period. In India, Millennials (aged 24-37) were the most susceptible to such scams in 2021, with 58 per cent of those that continued with the scam incurring monetary loss. 73 per cent of males in India who proceeded to interact with a scammer were likely to lose money. Each month, Microsoft receives about 6,500 complaints globally; this is down from 13,000 reports in an average month in prior years. To better understand how the problem with tech support scams is evolving globally and to enhance efforts to educate consumers on how to stay safe online, Microsoft commissioned YouGov for this global survey in 16 countries, including four Asia Pacific markets – India, Australia, Japan and Singapore. This is a follow-up to similar surveys that Microsoft fielded in 2018 and 2016. Mary Jo Schrade, Assistant General Counsel, Regional Lead, Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit Asia, said: “Tech support scams are perpetrated globally and target people of all ages. Findings reveal that compared to the rest of the world, consumers in India are more likely to be targeted, less inclined to ignore scam interactions, and as a result, lose more money. “ Consumers in India were much more likely to continue with scams, regardless of type, as compared with global figures. Incidences of unsolicited call scams increased from 23 per cent to 31 per cent in India between 2018 to 2021, and this continues to be the scam type that consumers in India respond to most often, with almost half (45 per cent) of those surveyed continuing and taking recommended actions from the scammer. In contrast, global scam encounter rates for unsolicited calls fell two points during the same period, from 27 per cent in 2018 to 25 per cent in 2021. While scams involving pop-up ads (51%), redirects to websites (48per cent), or unsolicited emails (42 per cent) fell 5 per cent, 1 per cent, and 2 per cent respectively in 2021 compared with 2018, consumers in India were 11 per cent, 16 per cent, and 7 per cent more likely to continue engaging with such scams over the same period respectively. Source:thehindubusinessline.com

The global health body’s ‘no-fault’ compensation program for Covid vaccine recipients needs a booster shot of visibility. Away from the public gaze on the vaccines deployed across the world, governments and companies are locked in discussions behind closed doors. These powwows are over supplies, timelines and, among other things, the course of action when a vaccine does not have the desired outcome — when a side-effect is reported that could be linked to the vaccine, for example. This is where it gets challenging for governments not inclined to provide indemnity to vaccine makers against vaccine-linked litigation. A situation that appears to be playing out closer home, as vaccines from companies like Pfizer await a passage to India. Precisely to avoid such an impasse, a “global vaccine injury compensation mechanism” had been announced by the World Health Organization (WHO) in February. The scheme, though, is in need of a massive shot of visibility. First of its kind Explaining how it works, WHO’s Chief Scientist Dr Soumya Swaminathan says, “For vaccines that come through COVAX, there is a common indemnification language which is used in the contract and there is a no-fault compensation scheme… a global scheme to provide compensation to anybody who suffers a serious adverse event like injury or death due to the vaccine supplied through COVAX.” It is for the first time such a system is in place globally, she says. And the reason: “All of these vaccines are used under emergency-use listing, which means when they were initially used there still wasn’t a lot of real-world data. So you cannot predict all the rare side-effects that could happen. As we have seen with each of these vaccines, there have been rare events which came to light only after millions of doses were administered. So, yes, the no-fault compensation covers those vaccines which are supplied through COVAX.” But no one seems to have tapped into this program. “It’s been operational for a couple of months. There is obviously time that is given to people to come forward. Because, if you suffer an adverse event, there is a procedure where it has to be investigated by the local safety committee, the cause of the event has to be found out, it has to be certified that it’s been due to a vaccine etc, and then people can apply for compensation,” explains Dr Swaminathan. Besides, “there is also, I think, a bit of awareness creation needed so that both individuals and governments are aware that they have this facility to fall back on,” she adds. WHO worked with Chubb Limited to secure insurance coverage for the program (valid till June 30, 2022). ESIS Inc (a Chubb company), the independent administrator of the program, charges no fees to applicants, WHO said while announcing it. Why indemnity? Vaccine manufacturers seek indemnity from governments to limit financial exposure on account of adverse side-effects from the vaccine, says Kritika Agarwal, Associate Partner, Majmudar& Partners. While one of the reasons is that emergency approvals were given to Covid-19 vaccines in the face of a raging pandemic, another could be that “vaccine manufacturers may not want to spend time and money on defending any claims in all the countries where they supply and be subject to extensive litigation,” she points out, The European Union, the UK, Latin America, Australia and the US “all offer indemnity in some form to vaccine makers, whether under legislation or supply contracts,” says Agarwal. WHO’s ‘no-fault compensation’ allows recipients to claim relatively quickly without litigation, she adds. Many developed economies have a ‘no-fault’ compensation scheme where anyone who has been injured from receiving a vaccine can file a claim against the government within an agreed time period, explains Sidharrth Shankar, Partner, J Sagar Associates. In fact, WHO says, “By providing a no-fault lump-sum compensation in full-and-final settlement of any claims, the COVAX program aims to significantly reduce the need for recourse to the law courts, a potentially lengthy and costly process.” A compelling enough point that begs attention from countries, in the interest of speedy redressal for vaccine recipients and manufacturers. Source: The Hindu Business Line

3rd Oct 2021: Union Minister Piyush Goyal on Sunday assured that every stakeholder’s interest will be taken into consideration while framing the e-commerce policy which would be robust and in the interest of every Indian. Goyal, who heads commerce and industry as well as consumer affairs ministries, also said that he welcomes all the feedback on the draft e-commerce rules but comments about inter-departmental issues on the draft rules are totally unwarranted. The minister’s comments has come following reports that the Department for Promotion of Internal Industry and Trade (DPIIT), the Corporate Affairs Ministry and the Niti Aayog have objected to some provisions of the draft e-commerce rules. The report citing an RTI reply has claimed that Niti Aayog has expressed apprehensions that the draft rules may harm ease of doing business. Goyal said that the whole purpose of an inter-ministerial consultation was to get views and comments from different quarters. “I do believe that I welcome all the feedback and look forward to a very robust and healthy consultations with all the stakeholders…We are trying to balance everybody’s interest and come up with a robust framework in which this (policy) can be implemented in the interest of all Indians,” Goyal told PTI. The very purpose of releasing draft rules is to elicit public opinion, ideas from other departments, from stakeholders, encourage feedback, he said, adding the government has always believed in engaging with all the stakeholders before taking a final decision on any policy. Citing example of data privacy law, national education policy and jewellery hallmarking norms, he said the government conducts stakeholders consultation to arrive at a good decision. Domestic jewellers are now appreciating the hallmarking norms, which they were opposing earlier tooth and nail, he said. “The consumer rules around the e-commerce are under public consultation. I warmly welcome feedback from various stakeholders but I have to protect everybody’s interest and balance consumers interest, ecommerce interests, retailers interests,” he said, adding that “everybody’s interest will be taken into consideration and a balanced and a very robust policy will be finalized.” When asked if there is any move to link all the policies together, he said every department has to protect its own stakeholders. The DPIIT under the commerce and industry ministry is also framing a national e-commerce policy. “Consumer department has to protect the interest of consumers. Ecommerce policy is a matter for industry department to focus on, because they have to protect the interest of industry and internal trade …so we have an orderly behaviour in the industry and at the same time ensure that internal trade is also protected,” he said. He said that they are trying to balance everybody’s interest and come up with a robust framework in which this policy can be implemented in the interest of all Indians. On June 21, the consumer affairs ministry released draft e-commerce rules under which it banned fraudulent flash sale and mis-selling of goods and services on e-commerce platforms. Appointment of chief compliance officer/grievance redressal officer are among other key amendments proposed to the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. The government also proposed registration of every e-commerce entity which intends to operate in India with the DPIIT. The proposed amendments also included e-commerce entities requiring to provide information not later than 72 hours of the receipt of an order from a government agency for prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of offences under any law. According to research firm CUTS International, many consumer organisations have felt that draft e-commerce rules should stick to only consumer-facing issues. The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 were first notified in July last year. Their violation attracts penal action under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Source: Businessworld