The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has taken action against Shankar IAS Academy for misleading advertisements related to the 2022 civil service exam, imposing a ₹5 lakh penalty on the coaching institute. The CCPA, under the leadership of chief commissioner Nidhi Khare, found that the institute made false claims about its success rate and the nature of courses taken by successful candidates.
The institute’s advertisements boasted impressive statistics, claiming “336 selections out of 933 at All India Level,” “40 candidates in Top 100,” and “2 candidates have cleared from Tamil Nadu, of which 37 studied at Shankar IAS Academy.” They also declared themselves the “Best IAS Academy in India.” However, the CCPA’s investigation revealed that these claims were misleading.
The CCPA discovered that Shankar IAS Academy “deliberately concealed” information about the courses taken by the students they highlighted in their advertisements. Out of the 336 claimed successful candidates, 221 had only participated in a free interview guidance program, while others had enrolled in various short-term or specific exam components instead of full courses. The academy even claimed credit for candidates who purchased preliminary exam courses after the 2022 exam had already concluded, likely in preparation for the following year’s test.
The CCPA emphasized that over a million candidates apply for the prestigious civil services exam annually, making UPSC aspirants a vulnerable consumer class. The regulator is currently in the final stages of developing guidelines for IAS coaching institutes, aiming to ensure transparency in their advertising practices and protect students from misleading claims.
This action by the CCPA highlights the importance of Section 2(28)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which addresses misleading advertisements that deliberately conceal essential information. Providing clear details about the courses taken by successful candidates is crucial for consumers to make informed decisions when choosing a course and coaching institute. This case serves as a reminder for coaching institutions to maintain ethical and transparent advertising practices to ensure fair and honest representation of their services.
