The Supreme Court on February 2 issued notice on a petition to Google India on petitions filed by filed by tech start-ups challenging Google Play Store's billing policy as exploitative. However, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma refused to immediately stay Google's decision to remove apps from its Play Store over...
The Supreme Court on February 2 issued notice on a petition to Google India on petitions filed by filed by tech start-ups challenging Google Play Store's billing policy as exploitative.
However, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma refused to immediately stay Google's decision to remove apps from its Play Store over non-compliance with its billing policies.
The petitioners, including Arha Media and Broadcasting, Mebigo Labs, and Crescere Technologies, have filed special leave petitions challenging the
Madras High Court's August 3 verdict dismissing their challenge against the billing policy on grounds of maintainability under the Competition Act.
Last August, the Madras High Court dismissed 14 out of 16 petitions against Google's billing policy, in a major setback to Indian startups who approached the court alleging that compliance with Google's terms or exit from the market were their only options, both fraught with significant consequences. The remaining two petitions, submitted by Disney+Hotstar and Testbook, await further consideration. Justice S Sounthar refused to entertain the pleas saying that they fell under the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), emphasising the comprehensive remedies provided by the Competition Act compared to civil court proceedings. The bench cited Section 61 of the Competition Act, which explicitly bars civil courts from adjudicating on matters within the purview of the CCI.
However, the petitioners have claimed that the issue fell within the purview of civil courts rather than the CCI, pointing to an alleged violation of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. During the hearing, Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh, representing the aggrieved app developers and startups, contended that the high court's jurisdiction is not barred by the Competition Act since the allegation was not over an abuse of dominant position, but one-sided and unconscionable terms and conditions set by the US tech major. The senior counsel also sought interim protection until the appeals are resolved, highlighting the dire consequences of potential app delisting and increased fees imposed by the tech giant.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Google, opposed their pleas, arguing, among other things, that no case under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act could be discerned.
At the end of the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud agreed to consider the pleas by issuing notice. However, the court categorically declined the app developers' request for an interim stay on the billing policy. The chief justice explained, "They have succeeded before the high court. It would be unconscionable now to pass an interim order. We will simply issue notice. Otherwise, we will completely wipe away the fact that this has been decided by a division bench of the high court."
The court accordingly issued notice on the pleas and asked Google to file its counter-affidavit within four weeks. The special leave petitions have been directed to be listed for hearing on March 19.
Case Details
Arha Media and Broadcasting Private Limited v. Google India Private Limited & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2711 of 2024