The Delhi High Court has stayed CDSCO’s order to prosecute IndiaMART for allegedly listing illegal drugs, granting the e-commerce platform interim relief. The matter will be heard again on September 17, 2025.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday stopped the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) from going ahead with its order to start criminal prosecution against IndiaMART Intermesh Limited. The case relates to the allegation that some illegal drugs were listed on the company’s online platform.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the order and listed the matter before the roster Bench for hearing next week. For now, the Court has said that the CDSCO’s order will not be acted upon until the case is heard.
IndiaMART argued in Court that the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, especially Sections 18 and 27, do not apply to it.
These provisions are meant for the
“manufacture, sale, and distribution of certain drugs.”
IndiaMART’s lawyers said the company only acts as a marketplace and not as a seller. According to them, IndiaMART works purely as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act and therefore enjoys protection under the safe harbour clause in Section 79.
They stressed that
“it does not participate in any transaction between buyers and sellers.”
On the other side, the CDSCO’s counsel told the Court that, without prejudice to its rights,
“its September 1 order against IndiaMART would not be given effect to until the Court hears the case next.”
Justice Banerjee therefore directed that the interim order passed by the regulator will remain suspended until September 17, 2025.
The matter began with several notices and letters that CDSCO had sent to IndiaMART between June 2024 and July 2025. These communications asked the company to take corrective steps and warned about possible prosecution.
They included notices and emails dated June 13, 2024, December 24, 2024, May 9, 2024, May 1, 2025, July 8, 2025, July 9, 2025, and July 18, 2025.
IndiaMART had already gone to the High Court in June 2024 against these notices. Later, on July 22, 2025, Justice Sachin Datta recorded the submissions of the government counsel, where it was stated that IndiaMART’s replies to the notices were under consideration.
The Court noted that
“a reasoned order would be passed after granting the company an opportunity of hearing.”
Because of this assurance, the Court protected IndiaMART and its directors from coercive steps and held that “the apprehension of immediate prosecution was unfounded.”
Now, IndiaMART again approached the Court after the authority ordered the initiation of prosecution. The company repeated its position that it is only an intermediary and does not sell or manufacture drugs.
According to them,
“it operates like yellow pages. The company argued that it only lists products and has no role to play in manufacturing or selling them.”
In this case, Senior Advocate Darpan Wadhwa and Advocate Anirudh Bakru appeared for IndiaMART.
They were briefed by a team from Bahuguna Law Associates, which included Senior Partner Meghna Mishra, Partner Designate Ankit Rajgarhia, Adith Nair, and Senior Associate Yashodhara Gupta.
Case Title:
IndiaMART Intermesh Limited Vs CDSO
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi Govt
