Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

regulatory bodies takes varying forms in different countries, but its underlying ethos remains the same; that an advertisement should be legal, honest and truthful and ought to follow generally accepted norms and standards of public decency.

2.4. ASCI provides a machinery through an independent body which is known as the Consumer Complaints Council ("CCC") which examines complaints received against advertisements in terms of the ASCI Code. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.Nos.242 and 243 of 2023 CCC of ASCI comprises a majority of members from the civil society who are members of repute and eminence and represent diverse groups such as consumers, youth activists, lawyers, educationists, consultants, journalists, doctors etc. While the ASCI Code lays down guidelines which ought to be followed in the creation, publication, broadcast etc., of advertisements, the CCC receives and examines complaints against advertisements and makes recommendations in tune with the ASCI Code. The 1st Respondent herein seeks to ensure that advertisements conform to the ASCI Code. The Fast Track Complaints Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “FTCP”) is a mechanism adopted by the 1st respondent for handling complaints / objections against advertisements involving members of the 1st respondent i.e., where both the complainant and the advertisers are members of ASCI. The FTCP claims to address such issues on a Fast Track basis.

(ii) The claim that the MORTEIN product provides 100% protection even after switch-off is misleading and violative of the ASCI Code;
(iii) The claim that MORTEIN is “More Safe” is misleading and violative of the ASCI Code.

2.13. Upon receipt of the complaint, the appellant sent its reply to ASCI on 31.05.2023. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent obtained a Technical Opinion. The draft opinion was forwarded to the appellant. This was followed by a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.Nos.242 and 243 of 2023 meeting between the appellant's representative, expert and ASCI to discuss the draft expert opinion. Another meeting was held between FTCP of the 1st Respondent, the appellant as well as the 2nd Respondent. The appellant and the 2nd respondent were permitted to submit their grounds of challenge and response.

ii) The 1st Respondent's ASCI Code has no legal sanctity. Assuming ASCI Code has legal sanctity, it would be violative of Section 28 of the Contract Act, which provides that any contract in restraint of legal proceedings would be void.
iii) That the right to commercial advertisement is a fundamental right and thus any restriction by way of a regulation must be reasonable and must be imposed by “law”. However, ASCI admittedly a Company constituted under Section 25 of the Companies Act which is a self-regulatory body cannot pass orders nor frame a Code which impairs / abridges fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution for it would not qualify as “law” for the purposes of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the regulation / restriction of advertisement in terms of ASCI Code is void for it would not pass the muster of “reasonable restriction” by “law” under Article 19(2) of Constitution of India.
4.5. Against this background, a reading of the complaint of the 2 nd Respondent and the order of the 1st Respondent thereon would show that both the complaint and the order deals with the subject advertisement and its broadcast not just in Cable Television Network, instead the order of the 1 st Respondent covers the complaint against the subject advertisements across all Media including YouTube, Television, Instagram and Print Media and the order is made issuing directions with regard to the subject advertisements across Digital Media such as YouTube, Instagram etc., apart from Television and Print Media. The order is a composite order which covers not only broadcast of subject advertisement in Cable Television but also its broadcast across all media including You Tube, Television, Instagram and Print Media which would show that the order is traceable to the ASCI Code and not the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act / Rules. As a matter of fact, there was consensus amongst the parties to the appeal that the order of the 1st Respondent is traceable to ASCI Code and not Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act /Rules.