The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), New Delhi, has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Amazon Seller Services Private Limited for facilitating the sale of commercially manufactured sweets falsely marketed as “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad” on ‘www.amazon.in’, exploiting the religious sentiments of devotees ahead of the historic Pran Pratishtha ceremony of January 2024. While imposing the monetary penalty, the CCPA asserted that a marketplace entity that derives commercial benefit from transactions facilitated on its platform cannot simultaneously claim complete insulation from responsibility by positioning itself as a mere conduit under the IT Act.
The CCPA emphasised that statutory duties under the E-Commerce Rules, 2020, particularly the absolute prohibition on unfair trade practices under Rule 4(3) and the continuous obligation to prominently display seller details under Rule 5(3)(a), are platform-level consumer protection obligations owed directly to consumers and cannot be contracted away or delegated to third-party sellers through business solutions agreements.
The commercial appropriation of sacred religious phrases for ordinary confectionery, without authorization from the relevant temple trust, constitutes not merely a misleading trade practice but an affront to the religious sentiments of crores of consumers, with the scale and reach of major e-commerce platforms amplifying the inherent legitimacy such misleading listings carry in the eyes of the average consumer, added the Authority.
Accordingly, the CCPA directed Amazon to ensure that no product falsely claiming to be ‘prasad’, ‘prasadam’, ‘mahaprasad’, ‘bhog’ or any similar religious offering associated with ten major shrines, including Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine, Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Shri Jagannath Temple, Shri Kedarnath Temple, Shri Badrinath Temple, Shri Somnath Temple, Shri Dwarkadhish Temple and Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple, is hosted on its platform without verifiable documentary proof of authorization from the concerned institution.
The Coram comprising of Nidhi Khare (Chief Commissioner) and Anupam Mishra (Commissioner) noted that the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 are enacted under the CP Act, 2019, a statute independent of and subsequent to the IT Act, and obligations under Rule 4(3) and Rule 5(3)(a) are platform-level consumer protection duties owed directly to consumers that cannot be discharged by invoking the intermediary safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act. Compliance with one regime does not discharge obligations under the other.
The Authority observed that Amazon’s reliance on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1] was misplaced because that judgment was rendered in the context of free speech and expression under Article 19, not consumer protection or marketplace obligations under the E-Commerce Rules. The standard of “actual knowledge” by court order cannot be imported into a consumer protection framework that imposes independent affirmative, proactive, and continuous duties on marketplace entities.
The Authority further observed that a marketplace entity deriving commercial benefit from transactions on its platform cannot simultaneously claim complete insulation from responsibility by positioning itself as a mere conduit. The contractual delegation of compliance obligations to sellers through the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement does not discharge Amazon’s statutory obligations, as statutory duties cannot be contracted away or delegated to third parties.
The Authority expressed particular concern that despite Amazon’s claim of automated monitoring systems and dedicated seller compliance infrastructure, the impugned listings using the name of one of the most revered religious institutions remained live on the platform without detection, demonstrating that the due diligence mechanisms were either non-functional, inadequate, or not applied to listings of a religious nature.
The Authority also noted that the timing of the impugned listings i.e., live prior to and during the peak period of public anticipation surrounding the Pran Pratishtha ceremony, made the absence of proactive intervention particularly egregious. Devout Hindu consumers seeking to participate in or commemorate the historic consecration constituted a particularly vulnerable class whose religious faith and emotions were exploited.
Also read Bombay High Court Cancels Bail of Goa Nightclub Owners in Case Over Death of 25 Persons in Fire
Briefly, a representation was filed by the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT), alleging that Amazon’s e-commerce platform ‘www.amazon.in’ was facilitating deceptive trade practices by permitting the sale of commercially produced sweets under the misleading label of “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad.” The products were being marketed as authentic prasad tied to the revered Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, Ayodhya, without any authorization, affiliation, or endorsement from the temple or the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, thereby exploiting the deeply held religious sentiments of devotees for commercial gain.
Four specific products were found listed by seller M/s Chandu Trading Company under the brand “Bihar Brothers”, including Raghupati Ghee Ladoo, Khoya Khobi Ladoo, Ghee Bundi Ladoo, and Desi Cow Milk Peda, priced between Rs. 299 and Rs. 385, all categorized under grocery and sweetmeats and available for nationwide delivery. The listings prominently used religious imagery, Hindi slogans referencing Lord Ram and Ayodhya, and marketing language asserting that the products carried “Blessings from Shree Ram Janam Bhumi Temple, Ayodhya.” The ingredient column across all listings even declared the ingredient as “Ram Mandir Prasad,” a patently misleading and non-factual description.
