Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
META PLATFORMS INC. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-3437/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Vivek Reddy, Senior Advocate, Swati Agrawal, Shashank Mishra, Akshi Rastogi, Vedika Rathore, Jyotsna Punshi, Rahul Sethia, Pival Peddireddi
For the Respondents: Chetan Sharma, ASG, Abhishek Gupta, CGSC, Dhananjay Singh, Kumar, Chanakya

An omnibus direction in a consumer protection order requiring compliance for all products without specific adjudication is vague; such direction must be clarified to avoid ex-ante adjudication and to preserve the right to fair hearing.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 2(28)(i)-(iv), 2(47), 10, 20, 21 - Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 - Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 - Use of Low Power and Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Direction in quasi-judicial order must be precise and not omnibus; an order susceptible to abuse requires clarification. (Paras 13, 14)

(B) Appellate remedy - Petitioner granted liberty to challenge penalty and self-audit directions before NCDRC, with time to file appeal; all rights and contentions left open. (Paras 5-7)

Facts of the case:
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) took suo moto cognizance of listings of walkie‑talkies (a product requiring statutory approval) on the petitioner’s online marketplace platform. After a show-cause notice and hearings, the CCPA passed an order imposing a penalty of ₹10,00,000/- and directions including that the petitioner ensure future compliance for any product requiring statutory approval. The petitioner challenged the order by way of a writ petition. During hearing, the petitioner withdrew the challenge to the penalty and the self-audit direction, reserving liberty to appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The petitioner also stated that it had already complied with the direction regarding walkie‑talkies. The only surviving grievance was the omnibus nature of the direction in paragraph 43(b) requiring compliance for “any product requiring statutory approval/certification”.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned direction, as worded, could be construed as an ex‑ante adjudication for all products listed or to be listed on the platform. The court held that such directions must guide conduct with precision; the impugned part was vague, omnibus and susceptible to abuse. It therefore clarified that the direction is not to be treated as an adjudication with respect to any other product not the subject matter of the order. If any adverse consequence arises from a future inquiry, the petitioner is entitled to a fair hearing in accordance with law. (Paras 13, 14)

Issues: The main issue was whether the direction in paragraph 43(b) of the CCPA order, which required the petitioner to ensure full compliance for any product requiring statutory approval, was overbroad and required clarification to avoid ex‑ante adjudication for all products.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that quasi‑judicial directions must be precise and not leave room for arbitrary application. An omnibus direction that does not arise from a specific adjudication is incapable of compliance and violates the right to fair hearing. The clarification ensures that future proceedings must follow due process and that the direction does not operate as a blanket order for unspecified products. (Paras 13, 14) Result : Writ petition disposed of with clarification; all pending applications also disposed of. (Para 15)

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 01.01.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (‘CCPA’) under the purported exercise of its power vested under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“Act”). The gravamen of the dispute seems to originate from the CCPA taking suo moto cognizance of listings of walkie-talkies, which is a product governed by the Use of Low Power and Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018 on the petitioner’s (“Facebook Marketplace”) platform.

2. In relation thereto, a Show Cause Notice dated 02.05.2025 was issued by the CCPA to the petitioner, and in furtherance of it, various written representations/submissions, and personal hearings were conducted. Ultimately, the Impugned Order came to be passed in which it was concluded that Facebook Marketplace has violated, inter alia, Sections 2(28)(i)-(iv), 2(47) of the Act, Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (“E-Commerce Rules”) and the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 (“Guidelines”)., (Para. 40(c) of the Impugned Order.)

3. In light of the aforenoted violations, the CCPA issued the following directions in exercise of its powers under Section 20 and 21 read with Section 10 of the Act:

“43. In view of the above, under Section- 20, 21 read with Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, CCPA hereby issues the following directions:-

a) In light of the nature of the violations detailed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is necessary that the opposite party is directed to Pay a penalty of ₹10,00,000/- for indulging in misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice.

b) The opposite party shall ensure that in future no walkie-talkies or any product requiring statutory approval/certification is listed, hosted, advertised or sold on its platform without full compliance with applicable laws and mandatory disclosures.

c) The opposite party shall periodically carry out self-audit of its platform so that such violations of law through deceptive listings/ hastings and advertisements are not prevalent. It shall further publish certificate of such self-audit on their website in public and consumer interest.

d) Submit a compliance report of the directions (a) & (b) above within 15 days of receipt of the Order.”

4. During the course of arguments, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, requested that with respect to the directions contained in para. 43(a) and 43(c) of the Impugned Order he be granted liberty to assail them before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (‘National Commission’). Mr. Datar also seeks liberty to agitate before the NCDRC, the issue pertaining to the applicability, or lack thereof, of the Act, E-Commerce Rules, and the Guidelines, to the petitioner.

5. The petition qua the challenge to the aforesaid directions contained in para. 43(a) and 43(c) of the Impugned Order stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the appellate forum i.e., the NCDRC.

6. Let an appeal be filed within a period of two weeks from today. If there is any delay, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking a condonation of the same. In any case, the time consumed in prosecuting the instant petition can be requested to be condoned, besides the time which the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek a condonation of, if it has been consumed for any other good reason.

7. All rights and contentions with respect to the aforesaid adjudication are left open.

8. Mr. Datar, further, apprises the Court that with respect to the directions pertaining to walkie-talkies, as contained in para. 43(b) of the Impugned Order, the petitioner has already ensured full compliance with it. It is his stand that Facebook Marketplace is not permitting the listing, advertising, and hosting of w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIPurushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JMETA PLATFORMS INC. – AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA & ANR. – RespondentW.P.(C)-3437/2026

An omnibus direction in a consumer protection order requiring compliance for all products without specific adjudication is vague; such direction must be clarified to avoid ex-ante adjudication and to preserve the right to fair hearing.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
META PLATFORMS INC. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-3437/2026