Lucknow: Taking a stern view of celebrity endorsements of gutkha and pan masala products, the Lucknow bench of the High Court has pulled up the Central Consumer Protection Authority for failing to file its response on time. The court imposed a penalty of ₹5,500 on the authority, directing that the amount be paid to the petitioner. It also made it clear that negligence in matters involving public interest will not be tolerated.
Court slams delay by consumer authority,
The division bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjeev Shukla was hearing a public interest litigation that raised serious concerns about the impact of such advertisements on society. The petition argued that the involvement of well-known public figures in promoting gutkha products sends a misleading message, especially to the youth, encouraging them toward tobacco consumption.
Despite earlier directions, the authority failed to submit a satisfactory response within the stipulated time, prompting the court to take a strict stance. It emphasized that issues involving public health and consumer protection require prompt and responsible action from regulatory bodies.
FCRF Returns With CDPO, Its Premier Data Protection Certification for Privacy Professionals
From cricket icons to Bollywood giants, a long list of celebrity endorsers comes under the lens
The plea names several prominent personalities as respondents, including cricket legends Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag and Chris Gayle. From the film industry, actors Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Akshay Kumar, Ajay Devgn, Salman Khan, Hrithik Roshan, Tiger Shroff, Saif Ali Khan and Ranveer Singh have also been made parties in the case.
According to the petition, many of these personalities are recipients of prestigious national honours, which enhances their credibility and influence among the public. Their association with gutkha and pan masala brands, therefore, is argued to be misleading and potentially harmful, as it normalizes the consumption of products known to pose serious health risks.
High Court’s sharp remark
The court observed that consumer protection laws are not limited to regulating trade practices but are also meant to safeguard broader societal interests. If advertisements promote harmful or misleading narratives, accountability must be held—not just by companies but also by those who endorse such products.
During the hearing, counsel for the authority submitted that the reply affidavit was nearly ready and would be filed soon. However, the bench was not satisfied with the explanation, reiterating that delays in matters concerning public health cannot be justified.
The development has once again ignited debate over the need for stricter regulations on celebrity endorsements, particularly in the case of tobacco-related products. The High Court’s firm stance signals that both companies and their brand ambassadors may increasingly come under legal scrutiny if found promoting products that could adversely impact public health.
