New Delhi, Oct 03: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on Drishti IAS (VDK Eduventures Pvt. Ltd.) for publishing misleading advertisements about its role in the success of candidates in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination 2022. In its promotional campaign, the coaching institute prominently claimed “216+ selections in UPSC CSE 2022,” displaying names and photographs of successful candidates. However, CCPA’s inquiry found that the advertisement concealed critical details about the type and duration of courses undertaken by these candidates.
According to the investigation, of the 216 candidates highlighted by Drishti IAS, 162—around 75%—had only participated in the free Interview Guidance Programme (IGP) offered by the institute after clearing both the Preliminary and Mains examinations independently. Only 54 students had enrolled in the IGP alongside other paid courses. The authority concluded that the omission of such facts misled aspirants and parents into believing that the institute was responsible for the candidates’ success in all stages of the UPSC exam. Such conduct falls under “misleading advertisement” as defined in Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Repeat Offence
This is the second penalty against Drishti IAS for similar practices. In September 2024, CCPA had fined the institute ₹3 lakh for claiming “150+ selections in UPSC CSE 2021.” In that case, the majority of the students cited had only taken the interview programme. The authority had then directed Drishti IAS to discontinue misleading promotions. Despite earlier warnings, the institute repeated the practice with an even larger claim in 2022, reflecting what the CCPA described as “non-compliance and disregard for consumer protection norms.”
Wider Crackdown on Coaching Ads
So far, the CCPA has issued 54 notices to coaching institutes across the country for similar practices. Penalties worth over ₹90.6 lakh have been levied on 26 institutions for publishing exaggerated or incomplete claims about student results. The regulator stressed that coaching centres must ensure transparency in advertisements so that students and parents are not deprived of their right to make informed academic choices under Section 2(9) of the Act.
