Drishti IAS Appeals CCPA Fine Over Inflated 216+ Selections Boast

The Numbers Game: What “216+ Selections” Really Means

The fundamental issue in the case concerning the CCPA against Drishti IAS is the definition of the word selections. The advertisement of the coaching center was done in a way that emphasized on the number 216+, which left a strong impression in the minds of the aspiring civil servants that more than two hundred of their students had passed the ruthlessly competitive UPSC examination. The CCPA argues that such a number is a terrible distortion of the reality.

Based on the findings of the consumer watchdog, a thorough research conducted found out that a large number of applicants asserted by Drishti IAS was not its permanent, regular classroom students. Most of these successful candidates had merely used additional services provided by the institute, including mock interview, online test series or buying study materials. The CCPA lobbyists believe that such a comparison between these candidates and full-time students is deceptive.

According to the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, an advertisement is deemed as being misleading when it presents a false claim or intentionally hides key information to manipulate the choice of a consumer. The position of the CCPA is that having not explicitly defined the kind of connection that each successful candidate had, Drishti IAS gave an illusion of the success rate of its work, thus, enticing new students through a false illusion. This is regarded as a discriminatory trade practice that is meant to acquire a competitive advantage in a highly competitive environment.

This is not the sole problem of Drishti IAS but it is a common promotional strategy employed by many coaching schools. Once the results of the major competitive tests are announced, coaching establishments enter into a frenzy of advertising, and often end up boasting of the same best students. This topper race has been much condemned to provide a disorderly and deceptive atmosphere to a student in his attempt to make an informed choice about his future.

Drishti’s Defense: A Matter of Interpretation?

Drishti IAS will find it difficult to protest against the order of CCPA without claiming that its advertisement was not deceptive but an issue of interpretation. The argument that it has contributed to the success of all the candidates it featured, however little or big, will probably be used as a defense of the institute. They may argue that the ad did not directly indicate that all the 216+ were enrolled in their foundation classroom programs.

The legal side of the Drishti IAS would claim that such services as the mock interview and testing series are an important aspect of the end part of the exam preparation and they can significantly and legitimately contribute to the success of a candidate. In this view, giving credit to such students is not an act of lying but giving due credit to the services they have offered. The institute might argue that the CCPA has been too narrow and strict in the definition of a student.

Also, the appeal will probably appeal the quantum of the fined amount given by the CCPA on the basis that it is heavy and out of proportion to the alleged infraction. The institute can also offer its reputation, which had been of many years and the impact it has made to thousands of students over the years as mitigating factors. They are defending themselves so as to persuade a superior court of law that the order of the CCPA is unlawful and factual.

That is what takes the matter into a formal court of justice, probably the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) or a High Court. The next stage will be the process of a thorough investigation of arguments on both sides. The court will then face a delicate yet important dilemma of where to strike the balance between what is acceptable marketing and making a conscious effort to deceive vulnerable consumers.

A Wider Crackdown on a Billion-Dollar Industry

This move against Drishti IAS is not a one-off occurrence but a major aspect of a far more widespread regulatory crackdown on the Indian coaching business. The CCPA has been conducting aggressive research into some of the leading coaching centres, which train students to take on some of the most competitive exams in the field of medicine; NEET, and engineering; JEE. It is a nationwide initiative that is a direct response to a deluge of complaints by students and parents of the cloudy and in most cases unethical practices by the sector.

In the last one year, the CCPA has fined several coaching institutes in the tune of crores of rupees due to the same crimes. The main areas of attack have been deceitful advertisements on success rates, false claims of being the No. 1, and the use of photos of successful applicants without their direct consent or even without them being made aware of the nature of their enrolment. The regulator is sending a strong message that there is no longer the uncontrolled and exaggerated marketing.

This type of regulatory activism is fueled by the fact that millions of consumers invest a lot of money in the coaching business. To most families the cost of coaching is a huge sacrifice financially, but in the hope of having a better future with their children. False advertisements take advantage of this hope and not only result in financial losses but also create tremendous emotional pain when the outcomes realized fail to come true.

The actions of CCPA are causing revolution in the industry. Coaching centers are increasingly getting wary of their advertisement claims. Others have begun to include disclaimers or the kind of program that a successful student was taking. This crackdown is meant to create a more open and responsible atmosphere so that students will then be able to make decisions through verifiable information and not based on exaggerated and false marketing campaigns.