Tanisha Rana
Published on: October 13, 2022 at 17:31 IST
The Maharashtra government was recently asked to respond by the Bombay High Court over whether companies or organisations could engage in disease-related crowdfunding. [Special Inspector General of Police vs. Impact Guru Technology Ventures Pvt Ltd.]
A bench of Justices Prasanna Varale and Nitin Borkar stated that they were unable to locate any documentation to demonstrate which part of the National Policy for Rare Diseases 2021 permits organisations to request such crowdfunding while using images of children in commercials.
“After reading of the policy and particularly, the caption under voluntary crowd funding for treatment, we are unable to find any material permitting either private organization or a company to display such information and photograph of the child which they are displaying on public platform,” it said in its order.
A show cause notice that the Special Inspector General, Prevention of Crime Against Women and Children Cell of the Maharashtra Police had given to an organisation was being contested in court by the organisation.
In accordance with the notification filed under Section 76 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the organisation is accused of violating the law by utilising children as begging props in such advertisements.
The petitioner organisation claimed that it just oversees a technological platform that enables patients to use internet crowdfunding to ask friends, family, and the general public for money or donations for the treatment of ailments including cancer, other rare diseases, and organ transplant.
The Bench pointed out that the petition makes no mention of the petitioners keeping any money from the funds or donations they have received.
“If they are retaining some percentage of amount, then how much that percentage is retained,” it queried in its order.
As a result, the Court requested the following clarification from the State authorities on the next hearing date:
“(i) which Act/Regulation governs the crowd funding ;
(ii) can the crowd funding be done by the private organizations/companies and if it is permissible, who is the monitoring authority.”
Until the next hearing date, on October 19, the police will not conduct any coercive action against the petitioner organisation, the public prosecutor reassured the Bench.
For the petitioner organisation, attorneys Niteen Pradhan, Shubhada Khot, and Sagar Jadhav appeared.
The State was represented by Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai and Additional Government Pleader PP Shinde.
t conduct any coercive action against the petitioner organisation, the public prosecutor reassured the Bench.
For the petitioner organisation, attorneys Niteen Pradhan, Shubhada Khot, and Sagar Jadhav appeared.
The State was represented by Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai and Additional Government Pleader PP Shinde.
