The Supreme Court has given states and Union Territories six more weeks to respond to a plea seeking recognition of a broader consumer “right to know”. The petition asks whether buyers should have access not only to product details but also information about sellers, distributors and traders before making a purchase. This case was heard by a bench comprising of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Wednesday. Time has been provided to the respondents who have not filed their reply yet and the matter will be re-heard after three months. This petition has been filed by Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey for Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay who has argued that it is essential for consumers to get correct information.
What the petition seeks
The petition seeks information on product quality, purity, certification, standards and pricing. It also asks for the identity and contact details of distributors, dealers and sellers.
Indian law already gives consumers important information rights. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 guarantees the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods and services.
Other laws also require disclosures. Packaged goods must carry details of the manufacturer, importer or packer, along with consumer complaint information. Food products must comply with mandatory labelling rules under food safety regulations.
The petition, however, goes a step further. It seeks a broader recognition of consumers’ right to know who is behind the sale of a product, not just what is written on its label.
It also asks the Centre and states to require distributors, traders and shop owners to display registration details, including their name, address and phone number, at the entrance of their establishments.
Why the case matters
The applicant contends that if there needs to be a complaint filed, compensation sought, or recourse taken after the sale, then the consumer will need to know the identity of the seller.
This problem has become a serious one in the context of online retailing. Consumers have become used to purchasing goods through online marketplaces from third parties. When cases of counterfeit goods, fraudulent representations, or defective items arise, identifying the true seller becomes a tricky proposition.
Acknowledging this more general right to know might help in improving accountability along the entire supply chain. Manufacturers may be obliged to enhance their disclosure procedures. Retailers may become accountable for increased transparency. And online marketplaces may be obligated to provide easier access to such information.
Transparency versus compliance
The proposal may also lead to new compliance obligations, in particular for small traders. The availability of business and owner information to the public could result in higher administrative costs, and privacy and security issues.
In the end, it will be up to the Supreme Court to determine if current consumer protection laws offer enough protection, or if a broader right merits constitutional protection.
The court had previously ruled that the right to information flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The question in this case is whether that principle should go farther into commercial transactions and consumer markets.
The final ruling could shape the next phase of India’s consumer protection framework. At its core, the case asks a simple question: should consumers know only what they are buying, or also who is selling it?
Also Read: How Did Airtel Deliver 37% Profit Jump? ARPU Story Investors Shouldn’t Ignore
Prabhat Gupta is Senior Copy Editor of Business Segment. He has worked across broadcast and digital newsrooms, editing and producing stories on politics, business, regulation and current affairs. His work has included writing on global markets and regulatory developments, along with long-form editorial content on business and governance.
He holds a master’s degree in Political Science from the University of Delhi and qualified UGC-NET in the subject, bringing an academic grounding to public affairs and policy coverage.
