“The past refuses to lie buried.”
The above statement by Justice Dipankar Datta in his dissenting opinion in the AMU minority status case clearly enunciates the need for the consideration of historical decisions and precedents which can continue to influence and shape current legal interpretations.
The ‘past’ certainly refuses to lie buried even after the ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the case of Manu Solanki and Ors v. Vinayaka Mission University and Ors, which held that educational institutions including coaching institutions do not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and the pending case before the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 3504/2020). Even today, there is a focus on coaching institutions and their various malpractices, which ultimately affects the students and their parents, without a clear judicial stance.
Judicial stance on the issue
The judiciary has remained divided on whether educational services qualify as “consumer services.” In Manu Solanki, it was held that such services do not full under the CPA's ambit. This interpretation has limited recourse for students and families who seek redress in consumer forums, sparking debate over education’s regulatory status. However, contrasting rulings indicate a split approach. In Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurana, the Supreme Court recognised that institutions charging ‘fees’ as a consideration for specific promises, such as job placements or certifications, effectively offer a “service” under the CPA, particularly when there is misrepresentation or service deficiency. This ruling suggests that certain educational services - at least those tied to clear outcomes - ought to fall within consumer protection laws.
In the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Vidya Chetal, the precept is established that consumer protection applies when there is a clear exchange of fees for services, or quid pro quo, even in the cases of hostel accommodation, transportation, xerox and more.
Defining education
The imparting of education, just like a director directing a movie, is an ‘art’. If we take the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024, released on November 13, for an illustrative purpose by replacing the term ‘coaching’ with ‘education’, we get:
“Education” includes academic support, imparting education, guidance, instructions, study programme or tuition or any other activity of similar nature but does not include counselling, sports, dance, theatre and other creative activities;
Therefore, when the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), for example, announces that it will provide the students a ‘learning experience of the highest standards in fashion’, the onus is on the NIFT to provide such facilities which can be generally at par with other top institutes of the current time. If not, there's a clear ‘deficiency of services’ by way of misleading the students through this advertisement as per the above Guidelines. However, ‘experience’ also varies from person to person. So, how they teach fashion education that imbibes creativity in the students is a debatable topic.
Similarly, when a director creates a trailer/teaser for a movie, his main aim is to gather as much as attention or hype. A viewer after watching the movie cannot sue the director on grounds of ‘deficiency of services’ under the CPA just because the movie was not at par with the hype, as evident from the case of Yash Raj Films Private Limited v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi and Anr.
The Supreme Court in the case set aside the ruling of the NCDRC and questioned whether a ‘trailer’ or teaser creates a contractual relationship between the producer and the viewer. The Court held that it is in the total discretion of the producer whether to add a song or any other item in a trailer because that’s what trailers are meant for – to attract as many viewers as possible. The song in the trailer was an act done in furtherance of creating the hype for the movie. This is the ‘art’ – what to add, what not to add, how to add etc.
Similarly, how a teacher teaches cannot be challenged in a court, but if the teacher uses sub-par materials or outdated materials wouldn’t that amount to ‘deficiency of services’? Or, if a teacher chooses to teach some sections/parts of a syllabus and skip the others, wouldn’t that amount to ‘deficiency of services’?
Instances of the unfinished ‘past’ in the present context
By 2030, the Indian education sector is expected to grow to a value of $313 billion. However, beneath this rhetoric, lies a stark reality: there is little legal accountability in the education sector. This leaves students and their families—the consumers of education—without emphatic legal protections against deceptive practices of the educational institutions.
As part of a major drive-up in consumer protection initiatives, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has stepped up its investigations of coaching centres in India and issued a number of penalties and notifications to combat deceptive advertising and coercive marketing techniques recently.
The CCPA has dramatically increased its reach, with news outlets like Mint and Business Standard reporting an extraordinary wave of fines at coaching institutions, 45 of them. According to another report, 15 institutions were penalised with a total fine of around ₹38 lakh. The CCPA is ramping up and coming down heavily on coaching institutions for making false claims of urgency, such as "limited seats left," and advertising a "100% success guarantee."
Why consumer courts over civil courts
Consumer disputes or issues can also be solved through civil suits depending on the type of case. However, it will eventually defeat the ethos of the Act. The Act was enacted for ‘quick’ and ‘easy’ access to justice free from the shackles of a civil court. As judicial interpretations continue to be unresolved, the CCPA has emerged as a primary advocate for education consumers. By levying fines and issuing notices to institutions that make misleading promises, the CCPA is taking action where courts have yet to provide clarity. This approach not only supports the CPA’s objective of accessible consumer redressal, but also signals a commitment to ethical standards in a sector with high consumer stakes. The CCPA’s interventions are particularly valuable in an environment where families might otherwise be forced into prolonged litigation to resolve grievances with educational services. Through quick enforcement actions, the CCPA is stepping in to provide protections that students and families may otherwise struggle to secure under the current legal framework.
The pending decision in Manu Solanki before the Supreme Court could reshape consumers' rights in education. If the Court rules to include educational institutions under the ambit of the CPA, education consumers or students and their parents will benefit from a greater streamlined avenue for addressing grievances through consumer forums. This type of ruling might assist the CCPA’s regulatory push and ensure that consumer rights extend to the sector where investments are enormous and consequences surprisingly impactful. Until then, the CCPA’s ongoing enforcement is an essential check on the education sector, placing an example of responsibility in the absence of a judicial decree. With its enforcement efforts, the CCPA is signalling that transparency and accountability in educational services and ensuring fair treatment for students and their families.
Conclusion
This issue has culminated in the release of Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024 on November 13, 2024, in which the CCPA fined 18 coaching institutions with a staggering amount of ₹54,60,000 and took suo moto action against 45 other coaching institutions. Moreover, over 6,900 students have already contacted the National Consumer Helpline for the prompt resolution of their complaints at a pre-litigation stage in 2024, out of over 25,000 complaints from 2021, according to the press release dated November 13. This indicates the students' need for “quick” and “easy” access to justice reflecting the ethos of yhr CPA in the education sector. Therefore, to sum up, the CCPA has defined the term ‘coaching’ and ventured into the domain of coaching institutions by holding them legally accountable. The judiciary, however, should not come back to square one with all such developments in this sector and should hold educational institutions liable under the CPA, defining a clear legal recourse for students and their parents.
After all, if the endeavour of teaching is truly noble, shouldn't there be some legal accountability? Nobility must not be so brittle that it breaks under examination. Maybe it's time to fully bury the ‘past’, because if we don't, it will continue to reappear like an unwanted guest.
Satrajeet Sarkar is a first-year law student at Lloyd Law College.