Image Courtesy : Business Today
Click the Play button to listen to article

The Karnataka High Court on September 3 directed Flipkart Internet Private Limited to file an affidavit detailing the measures being taken to ensure that only BIS-compliant products are listed and sold on its e-commerce platform.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj also recorded Flipkart's submission that it would pay the ₹5 lakh penalty imposed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under protest, subject to the outcome of its writ petition challenging the penalty.

“…The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit of a responsible officer of the petitioner, indicating how compliance is made in respect of all products sold on the e-commerce platform of the petitioner to ensure that it is only BIS compliant products which are sold..." it said.

The Court also recorded Flipkart's submission that the details of grievance officers, including their contact and email details, were easily accessible on its platform.

While dictating the order, the court also orally told Flipkart: “ Don't put it[grievance officer details] in any small corners”.

The directions came after Senior Counsel Vikram Huilgol, appearing for Flipkart, submitted that the platform was complying with the first two directions contained in the CCPA's order—namely, ensuring that non-BIS-compliant toys are not listed, hosted, advertised or sold in future, and displaying details of grievance officers on the website.

Flipkart's writ petition challenges the ₹5 lakh penalty imposed by the CCPA over the alleged sale of non-BIS-compliant toys through its platform.

Before the High Court, Huilgol argued that Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, which defines an unfair trade practice, requires a positive act of falsely representing something. According to Flipkart, no such representation was made by the platform.

The CCPA had found that Flipkart's use of tags such as “Flipkart Assured” in relation to products sold by third-party sellers could mislead consumers.

“…But it is not the allegation that some dangerous lead or plastic or paint was used in toys… their entire case is built on fact that I did not have all these disclaimers, It do not constitute unfair trade practises, which if at all, at the very most is a violation of BIS act.”, Flipkart told the court.

“…But the consumers are getting duped, of course you are not doing this free of cost…”, the court said in response.

“…. They are 3rd party sellers, we get our share out of the pie of course”, Flipkart informed the court.

Further, the counsel submitted that the Bureau of Indian Standards Act (BIS) already provides a regulatory framework for alleged violations, and under Section 19(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the CCPA ought to have referred the matter to the concerned regulator after preliminary enquiry. Hence, the counsel argued that the current offer was passed without jurisdiction.

“…The legislature is also conscious of the fact that an entity should not be subject to parallel investigation if there is an alleged violation of statutory provision.”, the counsel added.

“…The operative portion of impugned order, para 39... we are not challenging that part [I) and II)] of the order... we are complying with it. It's only the third aspect... we are being penalised… An amount of Rs 5 lakhs is not much for a company of that magnitude... but then if I am paying the penalty, it's an admission of my guilt…there are defences... I don't want to burden the court.”

Hearing this, the court orally remarked:

“…Safe harbour will not be available on this... It's an e-commerce platform…Consumers buy believing that you have done your due diligence and verified who the seller is and the trust gets built upon that… Then, on your opening page and all these places put a disclaimer saying that you are not assuring quality... These are toys which children will use... infants would put it in their mouth. If the plastic is not good, the impact is huge…This is part of your Corporate Social Responsibility… You have the addresses of all the people it has been supplied to? We will recall all of them, and sent for FSL report? If a mistake has happened, they have to accept the mistakes. There is a possibility of zeroes being added to it also... need not be restricted to Rs 5 lakhs…. admit the mistake and go on and don't make that mistake again”.

At this juncture, Senior Counsel told the court that the maximum penalty envisaged under the Act for the alleged violation [sale of non-BIS certified toys], if any, is ten lakhs.

The court accordingly listed the matter on 6th October for further hearing

For context, CCPA, in the third week of August, had found that Flipkart had earned Rs 1,42,979/- from the sale of non-compliant children's toys. According to the said order, Flipkart facilitated the sale of toys not conforming to BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) standards prescribed under the Toys (Quality Control Order, 2020). The Authority found that between January 1, 2021, when the QCO came into effect, and December 2025, Flipkart continued to commit the alleged infractions including the sale of 1338 non-compliant toys through the platform.

CCPA had also noted then that the platform violated the safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act by failing to expeditiously remove unlawful content, even after receiving actual knowledge.

Case Title: Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)

Case No: WP 27949/2026

Tags: