The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has levied a fine of Rs 2 lakh on Shubhra Ranjan IAS Study for disseminating misleading advertisements regarding their claimed success in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023. The penalty, imposed on 22 December 2024, reflects the CCPA’s commitment to safeguarding consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Misleading Claims

In its promotional material, Shubhra Ranjan IAS Study asserted:

• “13 students in Top 100”
• “28 students in Top 200”
• “39 students in Top 300” in the UPSC CSE 2023 results.

These advertisements featured photographs and names of successful candidates prominently but omitted crucial information about the specific courses these individuals had undertaken. The CCPA’s investigation revealed that most of the claimed successful students had participated in a “Political Science and International Relations (PSIR) Crash Course & Test Series”, which is designed for candidates who have already cleared the preliminary stage of the examination.

The institute’s omission created a misleading perception that all its courses contributed equally to these successes. This contravened the provisions of Section 2(28)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which categorises the deliberate concealment of significant information as a “misleading advertisement.”

Breakdown of Enrolments

The CCPA’s investigation provided a detailed breakdown of the courses undertaken by the successful candidates:

• Political Science and International Relations (PSIR) Crash Course & Test Series: 26 students
• Essay Programme for Mains: 10 students
• Rapid Revision (Polity, Governance & International Relations): 2 students
• PSIR + Classroom Course: 2 students
• PSIR Answer Writing Module: 8 students
• Sociology Offline Batch: 2 students

Shubhra Ranjan IAS Study offers over 50 courses, yet only a limited number of these were linked to the successful candidates. The absence of disclosure about these specifics deprived consumers of the opportunity to make an informed decision when selecting a course.

Misrepresentation of Credentials

The institute further misled the public by using phrases such as “Shubhra Ranjan IAS” and “Students of Shubhra Ranjan IAS” in its advertisements and official materials. This created the false impression that Mrs. Shubhra Ranjan is or was an IAS officer, which is not the case. Although the institute attempted to dismiss this as a clerical error, the repeated usage of these terms across various platforms undermined this defence. The CCPA deemed this to constitute misrepresentation and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

Order and Penalty

In response to these violations, the CCPA ordered Shubhra Ranjan IAS Study to immediately cease publishing misleading advertisements. Additionally, the institute was directed to pay a penalty of Rs 2 lakh. The CCPA reiterated the need for advertising to be truthful and transparent, ensuring that consumers can make informed choices.

Broader Context of Misleading Advertisements

This action is part of a broader crackdown by the CCPA on deceptive advertising in the coaching industry. On 22 November 2024, the CCPA imposed a penalty of Rs 7 lakh on Vajirao & Reddy Institute for misleading claims regarding the UPSC CSE 2022 results. In that instance, the institute falsely claimed “617 selections out of 933”, where all successful candidates had only enrolled in a free Interview Guidance Programme.

To date, the CCPA has issued 45 notices to coaching institutes, resulting in penalties totalling Rs 63.6 lakh. These efforts aim to eliminate misleading practices and promote fair trade in the education sector.

Consumer Protection Efforts

The Department of Consumer Affairs, through the National Consumer Helpline (NCH), has also been active in addressing grievances related to coaching institutes. Over a one-year period ending in August 2024, the NCH resolved complaints from students and aspirants, securing refunds totalling Rs 1.15 crore for 432 affected individuals. Many of these grievances stemmed from institutes’ refusal to refund enrolment fees.