Explain Non-Compliance Of Court's Order In PIL Over 'Misleading' Ads By Padma Awardees: Allahabad HC To Cabinet Secy Rajiv Gauba

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday issued a notice to Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba seeking his response to a contempt plea moved for non-compliance with the High Court's September 2022 order in a PIL Plea directing the central government authorities to attend to the grievance raised by the petitioner concerning the participation of certain Padma awardees in 'misleading' advertisements that are harmful to the health of the public at large. The September 2022 order was passed in a PIL plea filed by the petitioner-in-person Moti Lal Yadav praying for a direction to the Central Consumer Protection Authority of India, to take appropriate action against the private respondents by imposing penalty as per the provisions contained in Section 21 (2) of the Act, 2019. Another prayer made in the petition is that certain individuals ('Padma Awardees') direct them to deposit the entire amount earned by them from such advertisements. The PIL plea had also prayed for the formation of guidelines for the dis-conferment of the awards in case an awardee is not found conducting himself appropriatelySignificantly, referring to the Supreme Court's order in the Case of Balaji Raghavan vs. Union of India, the petitioner had contended that though the Top Court had suggested the constitution of a national-level committee by the Prime Minister of India in consultation with the President of India to appropriately administer the process of conferment of 'Padma Awards, no such committee had not been constituted by the appropriate authorities.Having regard to the issues and concerns raised in the petition, the High Court had found it appropriate to require the petitioner to approach the Government of India drawing its attention to the alleged inappropriate conduct of some of the 'Padma Awardees' and also in respect of their alleged participation in harmful and misleading advertisements. "In fact, we are of the considered opinion that all these issues including the issue relating to framing of any such guidelines fall in the exclusive domain of the executive/legislature and hence, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the Central Government in respect of such grievances expressed by him in the petition," the High Court had said in its September 22, 2022 order.Against this backdrop, the Court had disposed of the petition with the following directions:- (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. (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.Now, alleging non-compliance of the HC's order, the petitioner moved a contempt plea contending that though, in compliance with the direction of the HC, the petitioner approached the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India on October 15, 2022, and the Chief Commissioner, Central Consumer Protection Authority, New Delhi, however, no decision had been taken on his representation till date.Observing that the matter requires consideration, the Court issued a notice to the cabinet secretary and Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) Nidhi Khare seeking their explanation as to why the compliance with the order of the HC had not been done in its letter and spirit.The matter has been listed for hearing on October 9.Case Title - Moti Lal Yadav vs. Rajiv Gowba, Cabinet Secy. Central Secrtt. Govt. Of India, New Delhi And AnotherClick Here To Read/Download Order

Explain Non-Compliance Of Court's Order In PIL Over 'Misleading' Ads By Padma Awardees: Allahabad HC To Cabinet Secy Rajiv Gauba

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags