Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The applicant-in-person in a contempt plea concerning participation of ‘certain’ Padma awardees in ‘misleading’ advertisements' of Gutka and Pan Masala, recently argued before the Allahabad High Court that the government has not yet informed as to what action has been taken against those person, who have breached the guidelines so issued for awarding the decoration of 'Padma Bhushan' and 'Padma Shri'.

"Even if the notices have been issued to some Pan Masala Companies, it will not serve the purpose in terms of the concern of the writ court," said Advocate Moti Lal Yadav who moved the high court 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 him in a Public Interest Litigation raising the same issue. 

Yadav's contention was raised in response to the submission of the counsel for the Central Government that substantial compliance of court's order had been made and also by an order dated 12th September 2023 passed by the Under Secretary on behalf of Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), notices have been issued to Vimal Pan Masala, Kamla Pasand and Ashok & Company Pan Bahar Ltd along with some more notices to other company dealing with Pan Masala etc.

To this, Yadav prayed the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan to grant him some time to file reply/objection to the affidavit of compliance filed by counsel for Central Government. He also sought permission to to file impleadment application impleading the competent authority/officer of the Ministry of Home Affairs in the contempt plea. 

While acceding to Adv Yadav's request, the single judge bench posted the matter for next hearing on November 29, 2023. 

In 2022, 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 22, 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 and 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," the court had ordered.

On October 9, the Central Government placed on record several government orders to press that substantial compliance of court's order had been made.

The counsel for the Centre further argued that in view of an office memorandum passed by Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Judicial Section dated May 8, 2015, the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India may not be impleaded as opposite party/contemnor in the present contempt petition. 

To this, Adv Yadav contended that since the high court had directed him to approach the Central Government, therefore, having bonafide intention to approach the highest executive authority in the bureaucracy, he had preferred a representation to Cabinet Secretary and since he had preferred a representation to the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, he impleaded the Cabinet Secretary in the array of opposite party.

He stressed that he had no other intention except to seek compliance of the order of the writ court issued in the abovementioned Public Interest Litigation.

However, court asked him to delete opposite party no.1 (Cabinet Secretary, Government of India) from the array of the opposite party. 

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