2ND NLU MEGHALAYA

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2025-26
MOOT COURT PROPOSITION
Flash Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of Sindhupradesh & Ors.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY

DATE :
25-26 April, 2025

ORGANIZED BY:
National Law
University Meghalaya
MAIL ID:
[email protected]
 Flash Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of Sindhupradesh & Ors.

Background

Quick Commerce Industry in Sindhupradesh

Sindhupradesh’s quick commerce sector – the business of delivering

groceries and everyday essentials at lightning speeds (often within 10–15
minutes) – has exploded in recent years. Pioneered by startups leveraging
dense networks of “dark stores” (small neighbourhood warehouses) and gig-
economy delivery riders, the industry grew from a valuation of a mere $200
million in 2021 to projections of $30+ billion by 2030. Consumers, especially in
urban areas, have embraced the convenience of ordering everything from
milk to fresh produce via mobile apps and receiving them almost instantly at
their doorstep. Major players include Flash Retail Pvt. Ltd. (FlashRetail) – the
appellant in this case – along with competitors like ZipMart and
TurantDelivery, all vying for market share through ultra-fast delivery
guarantees and steep discounts.

This boom, however, has unsettled traditional retailers and regulators.

Small brick-and-mortar shopkeepers complain of unfair competition, citing
deep discounts and exclusive product offerings on quick commerce
platforms that lure customers away from local markets. Consumer
advocates are raising alarms about “dark patterns” in apps and
personalized pricing/discounting, where algorithms might subtly push
consumers to spend more or present different prices/discounts to different
users. Additionally, the safety and welfare of gig delivery workers have
sparked public debate – the pressure to meet 10-minute delivery promises
has raised road safety concerns and highlighted the lack of social security
for the thousands of riders zipping through traffic to fulfill orders.
Policymakers find themselves walking a tightrope between encouraging
digital innovation and safeguarding competition, consumer rights, and
equity.

Parties

Flash Retail Pvt. Ltd. (FlashRetail) is Sindhupradesh’s fastest-growing quick

commerce company, founded in 2020. Headquartered in Tumbai, FlashRetail
operates a popular 10-minute grocery delivery app called “FlashKart.” The
company’s meteoric rise has been fueled by significant foreign venture
capital and private equity funding – its parent entity, Flash Retail Holdings
Ltd., is incorporated in Jingapore, and over 75% of the operating funds in

Page 2
FlashRetail’s Sindhupradesh business originate from foreign direct
investment (FDI). FlashRetail’s business model, as stated, is a “marketplace
platform”: it claims to simply connect customers with independent third-
party sellers who stock products in micro-warehouses that FlashRetail
manages. In practice, FlashRetail maintains a tight grip on operations – it
leases storefront warehouses, manages inventory systems, and uses
proprietary algorithms to forecast demand and set optimal pricing for
products sold on its platform. A significant portion of the stock in each dark
store is supplied by two major “preferred sellers” that work almost exclusively
with FlashRetail. While legally distinct, these seller entities have been alleged
to be controlled or influenced by FlashRetail, leading to accusations that
the company is operating as an inventory-based retailer in disguise.

The respondents in this consolidated appeal include various arms of the

Union and others:
The Union of Sindhupradesh represents the central government’s
departments and regulators that have acted against FlashRetail. Notably,
the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT),
which frames Sindhupradesh’s FDI policy, and the Enforcement
Directorate (ED), responsible for enforcing foreign exchange laws, are key
players from the Union’s side.
The Competition Commission of Sindhupradesh (CCS) is the antitrust
regulator that initiated investigations into FlashRetail’s business practices.
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), a regulatory body
under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, is concerned with unfair trade
practices and consumer rights on e-commerce platforms.
Other parties include the All Sindhupradesh Retail Traders and
Wholesalers Association (ASRTWA) – a nationwide trade body
representing small retailers and distributors, and a Consumer Rights
Forum, both of which have intervened or filed original petitions in some of
the matters leading up to this appeal.

Legal Disputes at the High Court Level

Over the past two years, FlashRetail and related parties found themselves
entangled in several high-profile legal battles in different High Courts
across Sindhupradesh. These cases, though initiated separately, all stem
from the growing pains of the quick commerce sector and raise inter-
connected issues. Below is an overview of the key disputes and the outcomes
at the High Court stage:

Page 3
1. FDI Compliance and Corporate Law Challenge

Jurisdiction: Wheli High Court (W.P. (C) No. _____ of 2024, Flash Retail Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Union of Sindhupradesh & Ors.)

Background: Acting on complaints by ASRTWA and local trader unions, the

Enforcement Directorate (ED) in mid-2023 served FlashRetail with a show-
cause notice alleging violations of FEMA and the FDI Policy. The notice
outlined that FlashRetail’s operational model was effectively “inventory-
based”: it highlighted that over 60% of the products sold on FlashKart were
sourced through two preferred wholesale sellers who operated almost
exclusively for FlashRetail. Furthermore, internal communications (obtained
during an ED raid on FlashRetail’s offices) showed pricing strategies and
inventory decisions being directed by FlashRetail’s management, rather than
independently by the nominal seller entities. The ED’s case was that
FlashRetail had “effective control” over inventory and was influencing
prices by funding discounts, thus breaching Para 5.2 of the Consolidated FDI
Policy (2017-2020) which prohibits FDI-funded e-commerce platforms from
owning inventory or impacting pricing. These actions, ED claimed, amounted
to contraventions of FEMA Regulations (specifically, the Foreign Exchange
Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019) because FlashRetail’s FDI
inflows were used for a purpose not permitted (retail trading). The ED’s notice
cited transactions from 2020-2022, when FlashRetail raised successive
rounds of foreign capital and allegedly diverted funds to build its warehouse
stock and subsidize consumer prices, thus violating conditions under which
approval was granted.

High Court Proceedings: FlashRetail pre-emptively moved the Wheli High

Court by way of a writ petition, challenging the ED’s proceedings as well as
the underlying FDI policy restrictions. FlashRetail’s arguments were twofold:
First, they argued no violation of law on facts, asserting that they remain a
pure marketplace – the seller companies (LeanBasket Traders and
QuickSupply OPC Ltd.) are independently owned (by Sindhupradeshn
citizens, one being a childhood friend of FlashRetail’s founder, and the other a
former executive – a point the ED found suspicious) and that any price
discounts are merely “promotional rebates” offered as a marketing
expense, which is not the same as influencing the sale price by the seller.
FlashRetail contended that the 25% vendor cap was not breached
deliberately – while one vendor did account for about 30% of sales in 2022,
they claimed this was a temporary anomaly during the pandemic supply
chain disruption. The petition also challenged the constitutionality of the FDI
policy itself, arguing that the blanket ban on inventory-based model for

Page 4
foreign-funded companies is arbitrary and protectionist, thus violative of
Article 14 and 19(1)(g). FlashRetail pointed out that domestic companies with
no FDI can do the same business (holding inventory for e-commerce) freely,
which creates an unequal playing field solely based on source of
investment. They also argued the policy was counter-productive in an era of
“Make in Sindhupradesh” and digital economy growth.

The Union of Sindhupradesh opposed the petition, primarily arguing that

FlashRetail must exhaust the alternative remedy under FEMA: i.e., respond
to the ED’s notice, contest facts in the adjudication before the Special
Director (Adjudicating Authority) under FEMA, and then if aggrieved, appeal
to the Appellate Tribunal, rather than bypassing straight to the High Court.
They cited the established principle that High Courts should be slow to
intervene in show-cause notices unless there’s a clear abuse of process. On
merits, the government defended the FDI policy as a reasonable restriction
in public interest – aiming to protect small retailers from extinction due to
capital-dumping by big foreign players. The policy, they argued, ensures fair
competition and was the result of extensive deliberation. They also
highlighted that FlashRetail entered the market knowing these rules and even
structured itself to appear compliant; having taken the benefit of FDI, it
cannot now claim the rules are unconstitutional.

Outcome: The Wheli High Court dismissed FlashRetail’s writ petition on

jurisdictional/ procedural grounds. It held that FlashRetail should first reply to
the ED notice and contest the factual findings there; the mere issuance of
notice does not warrant writ interference. The court noted that if the
adjudication goes against FlashRetail, they have a statutory appellate
remedy, and only after exhausting that could a court possibly look into
questions of law. On the constitutional arguments, the High Court was
reluctant to engage, given the premature stage. However, in passing, the
judgment observed that Sindhupradesh’s FDI policy choices are a matter of
executive economic policy and have been upheld in past instances; it cited
that treating foreign-funded companies differently from domestically-
funded ones may have a rational nexus with the goal of preventing
adverse effects of unrestricted foreign capital in retail. The court did not
make a definitive ruling on constitutionality, leaving that question open, but
its tone suggested skepticism of FlashRetail’s claims. The petition was
dismissed in January 2024, with liberty for FlashRetail to raise its contentions
in appropriate proceedings. (FlashRetail, in compliance, did file its response
before the ED adjudicating authority, which is currently on-going – but the
broader legal questions have now been carried to the Supreme Court appeal
in a different form, as described later.)

Page 5
2. Constitutional Challenge to Regulatory Restrictions

Jurisdiction: Nataka High Court (W.P. (C) No. ____ of 2024, Quick
Commerce Entrepreneurs Association vs. Union of Sindhupradesh)

Background: In a separate but related development, an industry association

comprised of several quick commerce companies (including FlashRetail as a
leading member) filed a writ petition challenging certain new rules and
guidelines that the Government proposed for online retail. Specifically, in
late 2023, the Department of Consumer Affairs had floated draft E-
commerce (Flash Delivery) Guidelines as an amendment to the Consumer
Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. These draft rules, influenced by
concerns from road safety authorities and small businesses, proposed to
prohibit “express 10-minute delivery guarantees” as a marketing tactic
(citing safety of delivery workers and public), and to impose a minimum
baseline price for essential commodities sold online (to prevent below-cost
dumping). While still at draft stage, some state governments, notably
Nataka, issued circulars signaling local restrictions in line with these ideas –
for example, Bolur’s city police, in an advisory, warned quick commerce
platforms against “publicly promising impracticable delivery speeds that
may endanger traffic safety,” effectively discouraging the 10-minute claim.
The petitioners (Quick Commerce Entrepreneurs Association) argued that
such restrictive policies on quick commerce violate their constitutional
rights.

Arguments: The petitioners contended that banning or restricting ultra-fast

delivery services and price-setting violates Article 19(1)(g) – their right to
carry on business. They argued these measures are not “reasonable
restrictions” since less drastic measures (like better enforcement of traffic
rules or requiring safety training for drivers) could address the safety issue
without stifling an innovative service that clearly resonates with consumer
needs. They also argued an Article 14 breach, claiming the rules irrationally
target only the quick commerce segment: for instance, imposing minimum
online prices for essentials only on e-commerce players (under the guise of
predatory pricing concerns) while no similar pricing restriction exists for large
brick-and-mortar supermarket chains that also discount heavily. This, they
say, amounts to unequal treatment, born out of lobbying pressure rather
than principle. The Union of Sindhupradesh responded that these measures
are in the public interest – ensuring safety, consumer protection, and
livelihood of small traders – which are valid grounds to impose some limits
on the manner of doing business. The state of Nataka, defending its advisory,
argued it did not ban quick deliveries altogether but was an appeal to public

Page 6
safety, well within the state’s policing powers and not a direct restriction on
trade.

Outcome: The Nataka High Court delivered a nuanced judgment. It

recognized that the right to trade is not absolute and that innovative
businesses can be subject to regulations ensuring they operate safely and
fairly. However, it also noted that any such regulation must be evidence-
based and proportionate. The court struck a middle ground: it urged the
central government to reconsider the blanket nature of the proposed rules
– especially the outright prohibition on advertising delivery times –
suggesting that a more calibrated regulation (like requiring a disclaimer
about expected variability in delivery time, or mandating insurance for
drivers) could achieve the goals without completely muzzling a competitive
feature. As for the pricing floor proposal, the court was more critical,
observing that price competition per se is not illegal and that preventing low
pricing could harm consumers; predatory pricing should be dealt with by the
competition regulator on a case-by-case basis rather than through across-
the-board price controls. The High Court did not formally strike down any law
(as the central guidelines were still draft and the state’s actions were
informal advisories), but it gave a clear opinion in favor of the quick
commerce companies’ position. It directed that no coercive action be taken
against any quick commerce platform on the basis of the draft rules or the
impugned state advisory, effectively maintaining status quo. The judgment
(delivered in February 2024) highlighted that innovation in business models
deserves regulatory support, not unwarranted suppression, while also
acknowledging the state’s role in ensuring public welfare. Both sides claimed
partial victory, and the matter has now found its way to the Supreme Court in
the form of cross-appeals – the Union of Sindhupradesh seeking to overturn
what it perceives as judicial interference in policy, and the companies
seeking final clarity and protection of their rights.

3. Competition Commission Investigation and Antitrust Allegations

Jurisdiction: Tumbai High Court (W.P. No. ______ of 2024, Flash Retail Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Competition Commission of Sindhupradesh), and proceedings before
CCS/NCLAT

Background: In late 2024, the All Sindhupradesh Retail Traders and

Wholesalers Association (ASRTWA) filed a detailed information with the
CCS accusing FlashRetail of anti-competitive conduct. The complaint
echoed many concerns that had been raised against big e-commerce firms
in the past, but tailored to the quick commerce model:

Page 7
Predatory Pricing & Deep Discounts: ASRTWA provided data comparing
prices of 100 common grocery items on FlashRetail’s app versus local
kirana stores and supermarkets. In many instances, FlashRetail’s prices
(after applying ubiquitous promo codes) were 10–20% lower than
wholesale procurement cost, implying FlashRetail was incurring
significant losses per sale. Internal industry sources (and leaked emails
from investors) suggested FlashRetail was intentionally burning capital to
Flashly acquire customers, with a strategy to “bleed out the
competition,” anticipating that once smaller competitors and many
traditional retailers exit, FlashRetail could dominate and then adjust
prices upwards.

Exclusive Tie-ups: The complaint also highlighted that FlashRetail had

exclusive partnerships with certain popular brands – for example, a
particular premium dairy brand and a gourmet snacks line were
available only on FlashKart (and not in other stores or apps) in certain
cities, pursuant to agreements that those brands would not supply to
competing platforms. Such vertical arrangements could violate Section
3(4) of the Competition Act if they cause an appreciable adverse effect
on competition.

Algorithmic Price Discrimination: ASRTWA raised a novel issue:

FlashRetail’s algorithm not only dynamically adjusted prices based on
supply-demand but also potentially showed different prices/discounts
to different users based on their purchasing profile (a form of
personalized pricing). It argued this could be viewed as a discriminatory
practice that might reinforce FlashRetail’s market power by extracting
more revenue from less price-sensitive consumers while undercutting
more price-sensitive ones to block their shift to competitors.

Market Dominance: By Q3 2024, FlashRetail had captured nearly 45% of

the quick commerce market in metro cities (according to a market
research report, making it the single largest player in that segment), with
the next competitor at 25%. ASRTWA contended that this made FlashRetail
a dominant enterprise in the relevant market of “ultrafast online
grocery delivery” in those geographies. They alleged FlashRetail abused
this dominance by predatory pricing (Section 4(2)(a)(ii) – selling goods
below cost to drive out competition) and by leveraging its dominance in
quick delivery to push its house-brand products over others (Section 4(2)
(e)).

Page 8
CCS’s Action: The CCS found the information had merit and in December
2024 ordered a Director General (DG) investigation into FlashRetail’s
practices under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. This was a significant escalation,
as it marked one of the first major competition investigations specifically
targeting a quick commerce player.

FlashRetail reacted by filing a writ petition in the Tumbai High Court, seeking
to quash the CCS’s investigation order. FlashRetail’s grounds were that the
CCS had overstepped because:
The company argued that below-cost pricing alone is not illegal unless
done by a dominant firm with the intent to recoup losses later, and that
FlashRetail, though growing, faced “fierce competition” from at least four
other well-funded rivals (it cited that the overall grocery retail market is
huge and quick commerce is still a small portion, thus they cannot be
“dominant” in the relevant market which includes traditional retail).

On exclusive deals, FlashRetail claimed these were pro-competitive

“exclusive distribution arrangements” that helped new brands reach
consumers via its network, and that competitors also have their own tie-
ups – in other words, a normal feature of business, not something that
appreciably restricted competition.

FlashRetail also challenged the very definition of the relevant market,

urging that they compete broadly with all grocery retail (online and
offline, instant and scheduled delivery alike), in which their share would
be minuscule, thus negating any dominance claim.

Procedurally, they contended the CCS initiated the probe without

sufficient prima facie evidence, and pointed to a 2020 interim stay that a
High Court (Nataka HC in a different case) had granted in an earlier CCS
investigation involving e-commerce discounting (in the
Blipmart/Panazon context), suggesting CCS was out to make policy
through enforcement.

High Court’s Decision: The Tumbai High Court, however, refused to interfere
with the CCS’s investigation order. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings that
courts should not readily stop investigations by expert regulators unless
jurisdiction is plainly absent, the High Court in March 2025 allowed the CCS
probe to proceed. It observed that the issues raised – predatory pricing in
the digital market context – are complex and fact-intensive, and CCS
should be allowed to gather evidence and analyze market data. The bench
did note FlashRetail’s arguments about market definition and competition

Page 9
from offline players, but held that those were matters for the CCS/DG to
evaluate in the first instance. In essence, the court said an investigation is not
a punishment, and FlashRetail would have ample opportunity to present its
defense before the CCS. The writ was disposed of, with the High Court adding
a gentle remark that new-age tech markets present novel competition
issues and it would be premature for the judiciary to chart the path before
the expert body does. Subsequently, FlashRetail has been cooperating with
the DG’s investigation (submitting data on pricing algorithms, internal
communications with investors about pricing strategy, etc.), but at the same
time, FlashRetail filed an appeal (SLP) to the Supreme Court against the
High Court’s order, to raise legal questions about how competition law
should treat algorithm-driven pricing and the relevant market definition for
quick commerce – issues of immense significance beyond this case alone.

4. Consumer Protection – Dark Patterns and Misleading Ads

Jurisdiction: Taladas High Court (W.P. No. ______ of 2025, Consumer Rights
Forum vs. Flash Retail Pvt. Ltd. & CCPA)

Background: A coalition of consumer rights activists and concerned citizens

(organized as the “Consumer Rights Forum”) filed a public interest litigation
(PIL) in the Taladas High Court in early 2025, targeting alleged unfair trade
practices by FlashRetail and similar platforms. The PIL was triggered by
numerous consumer complaints and an investigation report by the CCPA.
Notably, in November 2024, the Central Consumer Protection Authority
(CCPA) had issued a Notice to FlashRetail under Section 18 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, inquiring into possible violations of consumer rights
through the company’s app design and advertising. The issues highlighted
included:
Use of Dark Patterns: The CCPA’s notice (and the PIL) alleged that
FlashRetail’s app incorporated several banned dark patterns as per the
new 2023 Guidelines. For example, the app allegedly had a “nagging”
pattern – repeatedly prompting users to join its DeluxFast membership
with pop-ups at checkout, with a de-emphasized skip option. It also had
instances of “basket sneaking”, where optional items (like an order
insurance or a low-value add-on product) would be pre-ticked or auto-
added in the cart requiring the consumer to remove them if not wanted.
Another complaint was that unsubscribing from marketing emails or
deleting one’s account was deliberately made cumbersome (a “roach
motel” pattern).

Page 10
 Misleading “10-minute delivery” Claim: The PIL pointed out that the
slogan “10-minute guaranteed delivery” is a misrepresentation, as
evidenced by many user experiences where orders took 20-30 minutes.
While FlashRetail often added an asterisk stating “avg. 10 min; T&C apply”,
the fine print was not clearly visible. The petitioners argued this amounts
to a misleading advertisement under Section 2(28) of the Act and an
unfair trade practice, since the guarantee is not actually honored
uniformly. Furthermore, they raised a public policy concern: that this
claim effectively pressures delivery personnel to rush, leading to
accidents – thus harming consumer interest in a broader sense (both the
consumers who are on the road and the gig workers).

Personalized and Surge Pricing Tactics: The consumer group also

alleged that FlashRetail engaged in opaque pricing. Some frequent users
noticed that prices of certain items were higher for them than when
checked through a new account, suggesting a form of personalized
pricing. Similarly, during peak demand times, FlashRetail introduced a
“surge fee” (an extra delivery charge) without clearly explaining the
basis, reminiscent of ride-hailing apps. The lack of transparency in these
practices was claimed to violate the consumer’s right to be informed and
to make an informed choice.

FlashRetail’s defense in court and to the CCPA was that they are in
compliance with all consumer protection laws, and that the CCPA’s
guidelines on dark patterns, being recent, were still being interpreted. They
argued that user interface design is subjective – what the regulator calls a
dark pattern might simply be effective marketing. For example, prompting a
membership upsell is common in many apps and not illegal per se. They also
submitted that they had updated their app in January 2025 to make
disclosures clearer (the delivery time claim now says “10-minutes (where
feasible) or ₹50 cashback if late” as a goodwill gesture, and options like
tips/insurance are now opt-in). On personalized pricing, they carefully
argued that prices “may vary based on real-time supply conditions and
promotions” but denied any illegal discrimination, insisting any differential
was dynamically determined and not based on personal identity factors.
They also raised a jurisdictional point: that since the CCPA was already
seized of the matter (the notice), the PIL was premature or parallel, and that
FlashRetail should be allowed to respond to the CCPA in the statutory
process.

Page 11
Outcome: The Taladas High Court, recognizing the importance of consumer
rights in new digital markets, admitted the PIL and in April 2025 passed an
interim order with certain directions. The court directed FlashRetail to
suspend its 10-minute guarantee advertising until the matter was decided,
noting prima facie that if indeed many deliveries were exceeding that time,
the word “guarantee” was misleading. It also directed the CCPA to conclude
its inquiry into FlashRetail within a specified timeline and submit a report.
Importantly, the court observed that if proven, the use of dark patterns
would be a clear violation of the Consumer Protection Act’s provisions
against unfair trade practices, and it lauded the CCPA for proactively
issuing the guidelines to keep pace with evolving market tactics. The case in
the High Court is still pending final adjudication on the PIL (and the CCPA’s
own proceedings are ongoing as well). FlashRetail, while complying with the
interim directives (it changed its tagline to “Lightning-fast delivery” without
the explicit time promise, for now), has appealed to the Supreme Court
arguing that some of these directives are unjustified and harm its business
reputation, and that there needs to be a balance so as not to chill digital
innovation and marketing. On the other hand, the Consumer Rights Forum
has also directly approached the Supreme Court to transfer and club this
matter, given overlapping questions about how law should treat practices
like personalized pricing and dark patterns – issues that transcend just this
one company.

5. Data Privacy and AI – Compliance with DPDP Act

Jurisdiction: Wheli High Court (W.P.(C) No. _____ of 2025, Digital Rights
Foundation vs. FlashRetail & Ors.)

Background: The Digital Rights Foundation (DRF), an NGO focusing on

privacy and digital liberties, filed a petition in Wheli High Court in early 2025
concerning the data practices of quick commerce platforms, with FlashRetail
as the lead respondent. This came on the heels of the enactment of the
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which became effective in late
2024. DRF’s petition raised alarm that FlashRetail’s AI-driven profiling and
data sharing practices were not in line with the new law and were infringing
users’ fundamental right to privacy. They alleged:
FlashRetail’s app collected excessive data (beyond what is necessary for
a grocery delivery service) – such as constant location tracking even
when the app is not in use, access to the user’s contacts and messages
(ostensibly for referral programs or wallet top-ups, but DRF argued these
permissions were not truly needed).

Page 12
 The consent mechanism in the app was flawed – the privacy policy and
consent checkbox were bundled with general terms of service, not giving
users a clear, granular choice as required by the DPDP Act (which
mandates consent to be free, specific, informed, and unambiguous).
Users were effectively forced to consent to broad data usage to use the
service.
There were reports of a data breach in December 2024 where hackers on
a forum claimed to have leaked FlashRetail’s user database (including
names, phone numbers, addresses, and order histories of millions of
users). DRF alleged that FlashRetail failed to notify users of this breach or
take adequate security measures, as would be expected under emerging
data protection norms.
DRF also challenged the lack of transparency in AI profiling – noting that
FlashRetail’s algorithmic recommendations and differential pricing could
significantly affect consumer interests, they argued that users have a
right to know when decisions are purely algorithmic and have the right to
opt-out or seek human review (concepts reflected in global laws like the
EU’s GDPR, though not explicitly in Sindhupradesh law yet). They urged the
court to direct regulatory guidelines for AI use in consumer services in
line with privacy rights.

FlashRetail, in response, maintained that it is committed to user privacy and

that it was among the first startups to appoint a Data Protection Officer and
begin compliance efforts for the DPDP Act. It claimed that location tracking is
only with consent for improving delivery accuracy and that users can
disable it (though DRF countered that disabling it severely degrades the
app’s functionality). As for the breach, FlashRetail neither confirmed nor
denied it in public, but in a sealed submission to the court, it provided an
audit report of its systems and insisted that if a breach occurred, it was
working with cybersecurity experts and would comply with breach
notification requirements once the Data Protection Board (the envisaged
regulatory body under the DPDP Act) is operational. On the legal front,
FlashRetail argued that since the DPDP Act provides a mechanism
(complaints to the Data Protection Board and appellate tribunal), a writ
petition may not be the correct course; however, given the infancy of the law
and the board not being fully functional yet, the High Court proceeded to
hear the matter in the public interest.

Outcome: The Wheli High Court, in March 2025, passed a detailed interim
order. It noted that the issues raised were serious and that user data privacy
is now a fundamental expectation under Article 21. While not making any
final determinations on breaches, the court directed FlashRetail to submit an

Page 13
affidavit detailing its data processing practices, types of personal data
collected, purposes, third-party sharing, and safeguards in place. The court
also ordered FlashRetail to disclose its algorithms for inspection by court
appointed expert. It also directed the Union (Ministry of Electronics and IT) to
expedite the establishment of the Data Protection Board and related rules
under the DPDP Act, observing that enforcement of the new law must keep
pace with the mounting privacy concerns. The High Court hinted that
companies flouting consent norms could be subject to significant penalties
under the DPDP Act and even tortious liability under the right to privacy.
Importantly for this moot, the court decided to refer certain broad questions
of law to the Supreme Court, given that multiple High Courts were grappling
with similar issues around data and AI (the court was aware of at least one
other petition in Tumbai on ride-hailing apps’ data). Thus, the Wheli HC
stayed further proceedings in the case and granted a certificate for appeal
on questions such as the extent of algorithmic transparency required by
fundamental rights and how the DPDP Act’s framework intersects with
constitutional claims. This is how the matter is now before the Supreme
Court, merged with the other pending appeals.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

By mid-2025, it became evident that the challenges posed by the rapid

digital transformation of commerce had resulted in fragmented litigation
across various courts, each looking at a piece of the puzzle: foreign
investment regulations, fundamental rights of businesses, competition law,
consumer protection, and privacy. The Supreme Court of Sindhupradesh has
now clubbed a series of appeals and petitions under the lead matter titled
Flash Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of Sindhupradesh & Others. These include:

FlashRetail’s appeals against the Wheli HC order (FDI/FEMA issue) and the
Taladas HC interim order (consumer protection issue),
The Union of Sindhupradesh’s appeal against the Nataka HC judgment
(constitutional challenge by the industry),
FlashRetail’s appeal (SLP) against the Tumbai HC decision (allowing the
CCS investigation),
The referred questions from the Wheli HC (data privacy case),
And petitions by stakeholders like ASRTWA and Consumer Rights Forum to
be heard in the matter.

The Supreme Court recognized that all these issues, though arising in
different contexts, are interrelated and have nationwide significance. It
admitted the cases for final hearing, noting that the judgment will have

Page 14
consequences for Sindhupradesh’s regulatory approach to e-commerce
and quick commerce. The stage is set for a comprehensive examination of
the legal questions that have emerged from this techno-legal saga.

The issue before the Supreme Court

Issue 1: Whether FastRetail's business model violates Sindhupradesh's FDI

policy by effectively running an inventory-based model instead of a
marketplace model.

Issue 2: Whether government proposals restricting ultra-fast delivery claims

(like "10-minute guarantees") and imposing minimum pricing on essential
goods sold online violate constitutional rights under Articles 14 (equality) and
19(1)(g) (freedom to trade).

Issue 3: Whether FastRetail engaged in predatory pricing by selling below

cost to eliminate competition, entered anti-competitive exclusive supply
agreements, or used algorithmic pricing strategies that could amount to
tacit collusion or abuse of market dominance.

Issue 4: Whether FastRetail's app design practices ("dark patterns"),

misleading "10-minute delivery" advertisements, and personalized pricing
and discounting strategies constitute unfair trade practices under the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Issue 5: Whether FastRetail users have the right to transparency in

algorithmic decision-making, having access to the relevant algorithms for
review, and whether FlashRetail’s practices infringe on privacy rights under
Article 21.

For the purposes of this moot court proposition, all laws, regulations, and
constitutional provisions referenced shall be interpreted as identical to
those applicable in the Republic of India

Page 15
 ABOUT THE FIRM

Agarwal et al. is a full-service law firm with over 12 years of experience

delivering Cutting-edge legal solutions across corporate, intellectual
property, and technology laws. Our team provides lifecycle support tailored
to every stage of business be it a start-up or a big enterprise. Agarwal et al.
has a strong focus on practical outcomes, interdisciplinary expertise, and
client first strategies, and act as trusted partners in navigating complex legal
challenges. Headquartered at Kolkata, we are proud to offer seamless
counsel across India through our operations offices, empowering businesses
to thrive in a dynamic legal landscape.

TECOF is an independent, invite-only community platform comprising

technologists, technology lawyers, legal services professionals, and legal-tech
developers. Their members work in leading technology companies, law firms,
and policy-making bodies across India. The platform serves as a collaborative
space for industry leaders to engage, exchange insights, and shape the
evolving landscape of technology and law.

Page 16
2ND NLU MEGHALAYA
NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION
2025-26
[email protected]