[Vajirao & Reddy Misleading Ad] CCPA imposes 15 lakh penalty

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of Rs 15 lakhs on Vajirao & Reddy Institute for misleading advertisements. CCPA initiated a suo motu case against the institute for making misleading claims on its official website.  

Background

The reason for CCPA’s action against Vajirao & Reddy was misleading advertisements. As per CCPA order dated 20th Februay 2026, the institute made the following false claims:  

• “Over 645 Selections Out of 1016 Vacancies in UPSC CSE 2023 From Vajirao & Reddy Institute”
• "6 in Top 10 AIR"  
• "35 in Top 50 AIR"  
• "64 in TOP 100 AIR"

As mentioned, CCPA initially conducted a preliminary inquiry to examine the authenticity of the claims. It found that the mentioned claims were prominently featured with pictures and names of successful candidates. In 2024, a notice was issued by CCPA which the institute responded to. CCPA examination revealed that most of the successful candidates had only taken the Interview Guidance Programme. On failure of Vajirao & Reddy Institute to provide fee receipts, enrolment forms or consent forms signed by candidates, CCPA proceeded with prima facie case of misleading advertisement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This was followed by investigation by the Director General (Investigation) and a report submitted in November 2025.  

Provisions against Misleading Advertisements

• Section 2 (28) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Defines misleading advertisements.
• Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Powers of CCPA to issue directions to the advertiser of false or misleading advertisement to discontinue or modify the advertisement. If necessary, it may, by order, impose a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees and for every subsequent contravention ay extend to fifty lakh rupees.
• Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 – Clause 4 mandates advertised claims to be truthful. They should not mislead consumers with unsubstantiated claims.  
• Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 – Clause 12 laces a duty on service providers and advertisers to ensure that claims are verifiable, capable of substantiation. They may be required to produce such evidence when required.

CCPA Observations on Misleading Advertisements

While analysing the claims of the institute, CCPA admitted that the Consumer Protection Act confers upon the consumers the right to be informed. It includes the right to true and accurate information which enables consumers to make informed choices.  CCPA observed that “Misleading advertisements undermine this right and adversely affect consumer interest, particularly in the field of education where aspirants invest significant time, effort, and financial resources.” It further expressed that “important information” in an advertisement varies on a case-to-case basis. That must be assessed from a consumer’s perspective, as per CCPA.  

Pointing at Vajirao & Reddy’s misleading advertisments, CCPA stated that “n the present case, specific course opted by successful candidates is an important information for the potential consumer i.e. UPSC aspirant. Reason being this will directly influence the perception of prospective aspirants regarding the efficacy, scope, and quality of the services offered by the Institute. Nondisclosure of such information creates confusing & misleading impression that the successful candidates were comprehensively trained by the institute across all stages of the examination, including preliminary, mains, and interview stages, which may not be factually correct.” 

Based on the importance of UPSC examination, reach of institute website and concealment of important details while offering courses contributed to misleading the consumers. The absence of clear and prominent disclosure by the institute resulted in violation of consumer rights, as per CCPA.  

CCPA Findings

Based on submissions and investigation of Vajirao & Reddy misleading advertisments case, CCPA found deliberate concealment of important information by the institute. All the provisions related to misleading advertisemnet were found violated in this case: 

• False description of product/service
• Deliberate concealment of important information
• Unfair Trade Practice

CCPA also discussed the doctrines of Caveat Emptor and Caveat Venditor to conclude that greater onus is placed on sellers and service providers. Considering the vast numbers in terms of YouTube subscribers and number of students who apply for the UPSC examination, CCPA sought to impose proportionate penalty. Thus, the Authority imposed a penalty of Rs 15 lakhs and further ordered the institute to desist from further publication of misleading advertisement and to make truthful disclosures in future. The institute is further required to submit a compliance report of the same within 15 days.  

Source: CCPA order dated 20th February 2026 (Click Here)