Allahabad HC issues notice to Cabinet Secy in contempt plea pertaining to misleading ads by Padma awardees

Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In 2022, a practising lawyer namely Moti Lal Yadav filed a PIL plea before the high court highlighting Padma awardees endorsing harmful products in advertisements

The Allahabad High Court last week asked the Central Government why it had not addressed a representation about certain Padma awardees' involvement in misleading advertisements. 

Court issued notices to the Cabinet Secretary in the Government of India, Rajiv Gowba, and the Chief Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority.

The order was passed in a plea to take contempt action due to non-compliance of court's September 2022 order, which directed the centre to address the grievance raised by the petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation concerning participation of ‘certain’ Padma awardees in ‘misleading’ advertisements'.

In 2022, a practising lawyer Moti Lal Yadav filed a PIL plea before the high court highlighting Padma awardees endorsing harmful products in advertisements, raising concerns about public health. He prayed for formulation of guidelines to revoke awards if awardees engage in inappropriate conduct. 

He also sought a direction to the Central Consumer Protection Authority of India, which is a statutory body created under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to take appropriate action against the Padma awardees' and managing directors of certain Paan and Gutka companies arrayed as respondents in the PIL, by imposing penalty as per the provisions contained in Section 21 (2) of the Act, 2019.

The PIL plea named numerous individuals such as Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Akshay Kumar, Ajay Devgan, and Saif Ali Khan as respondents. It also included the managing directors of Paan and Gutka companies, specifically Vimal Gutkha, Kamla Pasand Pan Masala, and Pan Bahar products.

Apart from the above mentioned, another prayer was made through the PIL that 'Padma Awardees' named in the writ petition be directed to deposit the entire amount earned by them from such advertisements and an equal amount be also ordered to be deposited by them in relief fund of the Government of India.

On September 9, 2022, in the PIL, the high court issued two directions. The court ordered that:

(1) For framing the guidelines as prayed for by the petitioner in the petition, he may approach the competent authority in the Central Government by way of making an appropriate representation setting forth therein all the pleas which may be available to him under law. And

(2) For redressal of the grievances relating to violation of consumer rights/unfair trade practices/false and misleading advertisement, he may take recourse to the statutory mechanism for redressal of the grievances available to him under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by approaching the Collector/Commissioner or even the Central Consumer Protection Authority. In case the petitioner approaches the aforesaid authorities, grievances which may be raised by him shall appropriately be attended to in accordance with law, with expedition."

However, the petitioner, on August 24, 2023, informed the court that in compliance of court's above-mentioned directions, he approached the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India and the Chief Commissioner, Central Consumer Protection Authority, New Delhi preferring a detailed representation dated October 15, 2022, through the registered post but till date, no decision had been taken by the authorities in compliance of the order of the writ court.

Moreover, he submitted that the issue in question was no more res-integra as the Apex Court in the case of Balaji Raghavan vs. Union of India, (1996) had issued positive guidelines to address the issue in question.

Taking note of the facts of the matter, the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, opined that the case at hand required consideration.

Accordingly, he issued notice to the respondent parties returnable at an early date while posting the matter for the next hearing on October 9, 2023. 

"By that date, the opposite party shall explain as to why compliance of the order dated 22.9.2022 passed in WPIL No. 646 of 2023 has not been done in its letter and spirit," ordered the court. 

Case Title: Moti Lal Yadav v. Sri Rajiv Gowba, Cabinet Secy. Central Secrtt. Govt. Of India, New Delhi And Another