A student-run group at NALSAR University of Law
This is the second part of a 2-part post authored by Anubhuti Garg, 4th year, and Gourav Kathuria, 2nd year, of NALSAR University of Law. Part I can be found here.
The previous post analysed the laws applicable to e-pharmacies in India. The present post looks at the draft e-pharmacy rules and its implications and suggests ways to ensure the smooth application of the law in India.
This is the first part of a 2-part post authored by Anubhuti Garg, 4th year, and Gourav Kathuria, 2nd year, of NALSAR University of Law. Part II can be found here.
The growth of the Internet and rise of companies like Amazon and Flipkart has meant that e-commerce is rapidly gaining traction in India. A notable emergence in this regard has been that of e-pharmacies, which provide heft discounts and hassle-free deliveries to attract consumers. Their arrival on the scene has been acknowledged by the government which has tried to bring in a draft policy in order to regulate these entities, however it is yet to be implemented. The existing laws are inadequate when it comes to dealing with e-pharmacies and there is an urgent need for new legislation governing the issue which is precisely what the Sale of Drugs by E-Pharmacy (Draft Rules) aim to do.
Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our Editors put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.
The RBI on 17th September released a discussion paper on comprehensive guidelines for the activities of payment aggregators and payment gateway providers. It was acknowledged that payment aggregators and payment gateways form a crucial link in the flow of transactions and therefore need to be regulated. The RBI has suggested that these entities be governed by the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 which requires all ‘payment systems’ (as defined in the Act) to be authorised by the RBI. Additionally, different frameworks have been proposed for regulating payment aggregators and payment gateways, and full and direct regulation has been discussed in detail. This would entail payment aggregators and gateway services to fully comply with any guidelines issued by the RBI.
Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our Editors put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.
In 2018, Anthony Clement Rubin and Janani Krishnamurthy filed PILs before the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of Mandamus to “declare the linking of Aadhaar of any one of the Government authorized identity proof as mandatory for the purpose of authentication while obtaining any email or user account.” The main concern of the petitioners was traceability of social media users, which would be facilitated by linking their social media accounts with a government identity proof; this in turn could help combat cybercrime. The case was heard by a division bench of the Madras HC, and the scope was expanded to include curbing of cybercrime with the help of online intermediaries. In June 2019, the Internet Freedom Foundation became an intervener in the case to provide expertise in the areas of technology, policy, law and privacy. Notably, Madras HC dismissed the prayer asking for linkage of social media and Aadhaar, stating that it violated the SC judgement on Aadhaar which held that Aadhaar is to be used only for social welfare schemes.
SERIES INTRODUCTION
Rebecca MacKinnon’s “Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom” is an interesting read on free speech, on the internet, in the context of a world where corporations are challenging the sovereignty of governments. Having read the book, I will be familiarizing readers with some of the themes and ideas discussed in MacKinnon’s work.
SERIES INTRODUCTION
Rebecca MacKinnon’s “Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom” is an interesting read on free speech, on the internet, in the context of a world where corporations are challenging the sovereignty of governments. Having read the book, I will be familiarizing readers with some of the themes and ideas discussed in MacKinnon’s work.
SERIES INTRODUCTION
Ed Note: The following is a guest post by Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, a student of NALSAR University of Law.
The law surrounding online intermediary liability in cases concerning copyright infringement has posed a major interpretive challenge in Indian jurisprudence. The division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its 2016 December judgment attempted to resolve the same in MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. While the case dealt with a host of issues in copyright law, this post shall limit its analysis and critique the judgment on its discussion and holding concerning the role played by online intermediaries. It is devoted to understanding as to how we can create a framework of internet governance that not only protects intermediaries where they deserve and merit protection from liability, but also makes them more accountable and responsible actors who wield significant command over a valuable media such as the internet. The interpretative impediment in the case arose due to the prima facie discord between Section 79 and the proviso to Section 81 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Ed. Note.: This post, by Ashwin Murthy, is a part of the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Editorial Test 2016.
The right to be forgotten is the right of an individual to request search engines to take down certain results relating to the individual, such as links to personal information if that information is inadequate, irrelevant or untrue. For example, if a person’s name is searched on Google and certain information appears relating to that person, the person can request Google to remove that information from the search results. This has its largest application in crime and non-consensual pornography (revenge porn or the distribution of sexually explicit material depicting a person without their consent). If X committed a petty crime and a person searching X’s name finds this petty crime, it leads to an obvious negative impact to X, in terms of job prospects as well as general social stigmatisation. X can ask the providers of the search engine to remove this result, claiming his right to be forgotten. The right is not necessarily an absolute right – in its current stage of discussion it merely applies to information that is inadequate, irrelevant or untrue and not any and all information relating to the person. Further there lies a distinction between the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten – the right to privacy is of information not available to the public while the right to be forgotten is removal of information already available publicly.
Ed. Note.: This 101, by Kaustub Bhati, is a part of the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Editorial Test 2016.
Have you ever used a torrent to download something not available freely? You must have. Ever wondered how it works and why there is so much fuss about it being illegal and people using it might face legal sanctions?