Jago Grahak Jago

Menu
Menu
Latest News

Public Charitable Trusts Are Not Considered ‘Persons’ Under Consumer Protection Law: NCDRC

India mulls major cut to food weighting in new Consumer Price Index basket

Inflation in India: There’s too much food on table to make Indians and RBI worry

IRDAI issued master circular: Insurance companies cannot reject claims in the absence of documents

FSSAI must protect consumers: Concerns over added sugar in baby food and contaminated spices

Misleading ads: Ayush ministry should set up dashboard to make details of complaints public, says SC

RBI ups UPI limit; ​US court on Byju’s vs BCCI

Landmark Declaration Between IMA and PSAIIF on Advancing Health Insurance, Data Protection and Universal Healthcare in India

Jago Grahak Jago Logo
Jago Grahak Jago Logo
Menu
Edit Template

Reports

Playtime or Poison? Harmful & toxic toys in Indian markets

Leave a Comment / Blog, Reports /

PM Modi’s Call for Safe, Indigenous Toys At the India Toy Fair 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged manufacturers to “make toys that are better for ecology and psychology,” stressing the need for eco-friendly materials, innovation, and self-reliance. He reminded the nation that toys are not trivial—they shape childhood imagination and national identity. In his Independence Day 2024 address, he reiterated that India must not depend on unsafe imports, calling for an Aatmanirbhar Bharat in toys. Yet, despite these warnings, India’s toy market remains dangerously unregulated. Raids, recalls, and seizures continue to expose lead-laden, chemically hazardous, and mechanically unsafe toys flooding shelves and online platforms. The Reality: Unsafe Toys Everywhere Recent enforcement actions reveal the scale of the crisis. Toys with excessive lead, phthalates, and explosion-prone batteries have been confiscated across India. Many were imported illegally, while others were domestically produced with recycled plastics and uncertified dyes. Parents, often lured by low prices, unknowingly expose children to hidden toxins. The result is a silent public health emergency: lead poisoning, hormonal disruption, and fire hazards—all wrapped in bright packaging. Raids and Recalls (2023–2025) Year Location Action Taken Hazard Identified Outcome 2023 Nhava Sheva Port (Mumbai) Customs seizure of Chinese toy consignments Lead paint, phthalates Thousands of toys destroyed; importers fined 2024 Bengaluru & Chennai Product recalls of battery-operated toys Exploding lithium cells Toys pulled from shelves; BIS issued safety alert 2024 Delhi NCR Market raids on local shops Uncertified plastic dolls, choking hazards Hundreds of toys confiscated; traders penalized 2025 Mumbai & Pune Raids on wholesale warehouses Excessive lead, toxic dyes Large consignments seized; criminal cases filed 2025 Online marketplaces Crackdown on uncertified imports No BIS certification, chemical hazards Listings removed; platforms warned of liability Why the Market Is Vulnerable India’s toy sector suffers from weak enforcement of BIS standards, consumer ignorance, and e-commerce loopholes. While BIS certification is mandatory, enforcement is patchy. Small traders bypass rules, importing toys without safety checks. Online platforms, meanwhile, are flooded with uncertified toys shipped directly from overseas sellers. Even domestic manufacturers cut corners, using recycled plastics and uncertified dyes to lower costs. The result is a market where unsafe toys are not the exception but the norm. The Consumer Cost Unsafe toys are not just a regulatory issue—they are a public health crisis. Lead poisoning can cause irreversible brain damage, phthalates disrupt hormones, and faulty batteries pose fire hazards. Children, the most vulnerable consumers, are being exposed daily to risks hidden inside brightly coloured playthings. The World Health Organization has repeatedly warned that no level of lead exposure is safe for children. Yet raids in India continue to uncover toys with lead levels far above permissible limits. Modi’s Vision vs. Market Reality Prime Minister Modi’s speeches have consistently highlighted toys as a sector where India can combine cultural heritage with modern innovation. He has called for toys that reflect India’s traditions, use eco-friendly materials, and meet global safety standards. But the reality is starkly different. The market is flooded with cheap imports that undermine both consumer trust and national pride. Domestic manufacturers, instead of rising to the challenge, often cut corners to compete on price. The gap between vision and reality is widening. What Needs to Change India must act decisively: Stricter Enforcement: Customs and state regulators must intensify raids and impose heavy penalties on violators. Consumer Awareness Campaigns: Parents must be educated to check for ISI/BIS marks and avoid suspiciously cheap imports. Industry Accountability: Domestic manufacturers must invest in safe, eco-friendly materials, aligning with Modi’s vision of an Aatmanirbhar Bharat toy industry. E-commerce Regulation: Platforms must be held liable for selling uncertified toys, with mandatory compliance checks. Call to Action India’s toy industry sits at a crossroads. On one side lies Prime Minister Modi’s vision of a self-reliant, eco-friendly sector that safeguards children. On the other lies the grim reality of toxic imports and unsafe domestic products flooding the market. The choice is stark: either India enforces its standards and protects its youngest citizens, or it risks turning playtime into a silent health hazard. For consumers, vigilance is the first line of defence. For regulators, decisive enforcement is overdue. A good toy should spark imagination—not endanger life. India must act now to ensure that every toy in a child’s hand is safe, sustainable, and proudly made to protect the future. 5 Things Parents Must Check Before Buying a Toy 1. Look for the BIS/ISI Mark Always check if the toy carries the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification. This mark ensures the toy has passed safety tests for chemicals, choking hazards, and mechanical risks. 2. Avoid Suspiciously Cheap Imports If the price seems too good to be true, it probably is. Ultra-cheap toys often bypass safety standards and may contain toxic paints, recycled plastics, or faulty batteries. 3. Check Labels and Packaging Read the packaging carefully. Safe toys should list the manufacturer’s details, age-appropriateness, and safety warnings. Avoid toys with missing or vague labels. 4. Be Wary of Online Marketplaces Many uncertified toys slip through e-commerce platforms. Buy only from trusted sellers and check product reviews. If the toy lacks BIS certification, don’t add it to your cart. 5. Inspect Before Play Before handing a toy to your child, inspect it for sharp edges, loose parts, or strong chemical smells. If it looks flimsy or smells of chemicals, it’s not safe.

Playtime or Poison? Harmful & toxic toys in Indian markets Read More »

Education or Exploitation: The Dark Side of Borderless Classrooms

Leave a Comment / Reports /

In the mid‑2010s, India’s edtech sector was hailed as the great equalizer. Platforms like upGrad reportedly promised prestigious global degrees, “guaranteed” placements, and Ivy League‑level education at a fraction of the cost. Marketed as “borderless classrooms,” they were said to offer students in Tier‑3 towns or busy professionals in Bangalore opportunities they could otherwise never afford. The pitch was irresistible. For a few lakhs, one could earn a “Global MBA” or “Data Science Certification” from universities abroad. India’s middle class, hungry for upward mobility, embraced edtech as a passport to global careers. Glossy ads, celebrity endorsements, and bold claims were said to have fuelled the dream. But beneath the slick marketing lay troubling realities: opaque refund policies, reportedly exaggerated placement promises, and degrees that allegedly carried less weight than advertised. Voices of Discontent The most powerful indictment comes not from analysts or regulators, but from students themselves. Their stories reportedly reveal how lofty promises unravelled into debt, disappointment, and disillusionment. 1. Ansar Basha Lavangiri – From Consumer to Defendant In 2023, Ansar enrolled in a hybrid MSBA program marketed with AACSB accreditation, live classes, and “100% placement assistance.” Instead, he reportedly faced recorded lectures, minimal peer interaction, and failed loan applications due to unclear accreditation. Out of 19 students, only one secured a visa. When he raised the issue of misleading ads and false promises with consumer forums and ASCI, instead of resolving the matter, upGrad allegedly sued him in the Delhi High Court, escalating his hardship. His case is said to highlight how a genuine consumer grievance can spiral into litigation. 2. Abhishek Dixit – Misled by False UGC Approval Claims Abhishek, a licensed aircraft engineer, invested over ₹5 lakh in upGrad’s Global MBA program with Deakin University after being reportedly assured it was UGC‑approved and valid in India. He expected career advancement but soon discovered the degree lacked recognition, rendering it ineffective for professional growth. Promised mentorship and small‑batch learning allegedly never materialized, leaving him disillusioned. Multiple students in his cohort reportedly raised similar concerns. 3. Naseer Ahmad Hurrah – Broken Refund Promise Naseer, an insurance underwriter from Kashmir, paid ₹2.75 lakh for an MBA program after being reportedly assured a full refund if loan facilitation failed. Despite repeated applications through upGrad and partners, his loans were rejected due to undisclosed restrictions linked to his location. For nearly two years, he pursued refunds, but upGrad allegedly refused repayment, offering only evasive responses. 4. Avinash Bharadhvaz Pakala – Exam Bans and Academic Mismanagement Avinash joined an MBA program advertised with “100% placement assistance,” assured interviews, and high salaries. Instead, he reportedly faced poorly conducted classes, delayed results, and arbitrary accusations of cheating. Students were banned from exams for months without evidence, delaying thesis eligibility and forcing paid extensions. Placement support was negligible, and refund requests were allegedly denied. 5. Unni Chandran – Finland MBA Pathway Collapse Unni invested heavily in upGrad’s Finland MBA pathway, resigning from his job and rejecting a lucrative offer based on promises of visa approval and refunds. He paid over ₹8 lakh in tuition, insurance, and travel costs, only to face visa rejection. Despite assurances of full refunds, upGrad allegedly refused compensation, leaving him unemployed and in debt. 6. Bhumika Suresh Sunkad – Abandoned Abroad Bhumika relocated to Germany for a hybrid Master’s program marketed with live classes, visa guidance, and strong placement prospects. After paying over ₹10 lakh, she found classes replaced with recordings and support reportedly withdrawn once visa crises emerged. Declared “on‑campus,” she was left stranded without assistance. 7. Balija Akshaya & Killada Sravan Kumar – Debt and Harassment A young couple, Akshaya and Sravan Kumar, enrolled in an MBA pathway program with promises of easy loans, live classes, and assured placements. Instead, they received pre‑recorded content, shifting requirements, and rejected loans. Unable to pay EMIs, they allegedly faced relentless harassment from recovery agents, legal notices, and public shaming. Lessons Learned: Safeguards for Students and Reforms for EdTech Credibility & Quality: Degrees without recognition or poor delivery reportedly erode trust and careers. Financial Safeguards: Opaque refund policies and misleading loan promises are said to trap students in debt. Global Pathway Honesty: Visa outcomes cannot be guaranteed, yet many programs allegedly marketed “zero rejection risk.” Consumer Protection & Student Vigilance: Grievances often reportedly spiralled into silence, evasive responses, or lawsuits. Education or Exploitation? The EdTech Crossroads The case studies of Ansar, Abhishek, Naseer, Avinash, Unni, Bhumika, Balija and others are not isolated anecdotes. They are seen by some observers as emblematic of a larger crisis in India’s edtech sector — a crisis where glossy promises collide with opaque contracts, where consumer grievances spiral into litigation, and where careers are reportedly derailed by misrepresentation and neglect. The lessons learned — credibility and quality, financial safeguards, global pathway honesty, and consumer protection — are not abstract reforms. They are urgent safeguards. Without them, education risks being reduced to a commodity, stripped of trust and social purpose. India’s edtech sector now stands at a crossroads. It can continue commodifying education, eroding trust, and betraying students, or embrace transparency, accountability, and pedagogy. The choice will determine whether the dream of accessible global education survives — or becomes another cautionary tale of boom and bust. “Education is not a consumer product; it is a social contract.” Affidavit – Ansar Basha Lavangiri Affidavit – Abhishek Dixit Affidavit – Naseer Ahmad Hurrah Affidavit – Avinash Bharadhvaz Pakala Affidavit – Unni Chandran Affidavit – Bhumika Suresh Sunkad Affidavit – Balija Akshaya & Killada Sravan Kumar To UpGrad: Request for Clarification on Student Grievances and Allegations UpGrad Reply: Request for Clarification on Student Grievances and Allegations Disclaimer: This article is published in good faith, in the larger public interest, and without any malafide intention against any individual or organization. The contents herein are based on information reportedly shared by affected students, consumer forums, and publicly available sources. They are presented as fair comment on matters of public concern, with the sole objective of seeking transparency, accountability, and regulatory safeguards in the

Education or Exploitation: The Dark Side of Borderless Classrooms Read More »

Easing Procedural Complexities of Consumer Complaints

Reports /

Under Analysis – Neena Aneja & Ors V Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.(2021) SC 164 SHRADDHA TRIPATHIFaculty of Law, University of Delhi The enactment of the Consumer Protect Act, 2019 (hereinafter ‘Act of 2019’) has undermarked radical shifts pertaining to consumer dispute resolution procedures including an alteration to the pecuniary jurisdiction of various Consumer fora across the country. Pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer forum relates to the jurisdiction or the competency of the consumer forum to try a dispute based upon the pecuniary/monetary value of the services/products in relation to which the aggrieved consumer has approached the concerned forum. The newly instituted criteria of pecuniary jurisdiction made a significant shift from the earlier one. A repercussion of this was the emergence of a dilemma upon the jurisdiction of these fora in respect of already pending cases and the urge to arrive at an answer as to when exactly should the newly instituted criteria of pecuniary jurisdiction be adhered to. This uncertainty has been put to rest by the Supreme Court as well as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, both having ruled upon the applicability of the concerned provisions of the Act of 2019 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter ‘Act of 1986’) while deciding pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. As per their aligned ruling Sections 34, 47 and 58, of the Act of 2019 shall have a prospective application, i.e., shall be effective post the enforcement. This implies that the provisions of the Act of 1986 shall remain in force for consumer complaints filed before the 20th of July, 2020. For consumer complaints filed prior to the 20th of July, 2020, jurisdiction of the Commission shall be determined in accordance with Sections 11, 17 and 21 of the Act of 1986. The 2-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Neena Aneja and others vs Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.1, reasoned that: Sec 6(c) r/w 6(e) of the General Clauses Act provides- the right which has accrued on the date of the institution of the consumer complaint under the Act of 1986 (the repealing law) is preserved and that the enforcement of the right through the instrument of a legal proceeding or remedy will not be affected by the repeal. Thus, the conferred right to file a suit as per the previous Act of 1986 shall stay preserved with the consumer and any alterations shall not snatch the same. The Act of 2019 is silent on transfer of pending cases to the fora in accordance with the provisions of the same and therefore consideration should be given to its purpose. A retrospective application would lead to enormous hardship, uncertainty and expense for the consumer who would have to take the burden of undertaking another round of litigation from scratch, increasing their ordeals and not serving any purpose. The verdict evolved in the backdrop of mushrooming of products and services aided by global supply chains, e-commerce and international trade, thereby expanding the consumer market. Consequentially, consumers have acquired a greater access to new markets which renders them vulnerable to the ongoing menace of unfair and unethical trade practices. This when read with the intent of the legislation that seeks to provide “for protection of the interests of consumers” lead the court to declare a prospective application of the procedure, thereby digressing from the norm of retrospective application of procedural laws. Similarly, the Commission’s raison de etre (primary intention) in Ms. Narinder Chopra v. M/s. Jaiprakash Associated Limited2 has been to avoid any anomalous and absurd situation which shall eliminate method and workability in redressal of consumer complaints. While the retrospective or prospective application of the provisions of Act of 2019 was the primary issue in the above proceedings, the court acknowledged the enormous pendency of consumer cases across Indian fora demanding a speedy disposal of cases, else, preventing the legislation from turning futile. Interventions such as strengthening class action suits and adopting mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism have also been mentioned by the court as essential components of the Act of 2019. This is suggestive of the legislature’s inclination to further the interest of the consumers and provide for a simpler & effective remedy to an already aggrieved consumer. The element of ‘ease of consumers’ has been noticed by the court playing a dominant role throughout the Act of 2019. The underpinned ‘consumer interest’ colouring the court’s interpretation of the Act of 2019 is noteworthy but in the contemporary scheme of facts does not reach far in the actual realization of consumer interests. Swift and speedy redressal mechanisms, man-power concerns of redressal and the infrastructural challenges ought to go beyond a mere acknowledgment towards actual rigorous transformation. Steps to ameliorate these problems need to be suggested, effectively implemented and later continued, followed & improved upon as per the need of the hour. Timely disposal of cases has a huge role in preventing consumer exploitation and serving consumer justice, as is aptly said: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. This consumer justice is not restricted to the concerned consumer-party but has a ripple effect in deterring the exploitative trade practices in the market. Delayed justice acts as a catalyst for expansion of ill-trade practices and their subsistence on account of lethargy & reckless attitude of the justice delivery mechanism. This, created psychology, can only be undercut by a rigorous overhauling and dedicated process that shall inspire faith of the consumers in the provided redressal mechanisms and uphold their interests thereby facilitating the purpose of the legislation, creating a positive impression about markets, market strategies and amicable seller-consumer relationships. Readers may refer to the table below for understanding the pecuniary jurisdiction of Commissions for the concerned goods & services: S. No Dates Pecuniary Jurisdiction 1. FOR CASES FILED BEFORE 20th July, 2020 A. District Forum– less than Rupees 20 lakhsB. State Commission– more than Rupees 20 lakhs but less than Rupees 1 croreC. National Commission– exceeding Rupees 1 crore 2. FOR CASES FILED FROM 20th July, 2020 A. District Forum–

Easing Procedural Complexities of Consumer Complaints Read More »

Comments Invited on the AYUSH Survey Report

5 Comments / Reports /

ANALYTICAL REPORT ON “CONSUMER’S PERSPECTIVE ON AYUSH” The Indian System of Medicine is of great antiquity. It is the culmination of Indian thought of medicine which represents a way of healthy living valued with a long and unique cultural history, as also amalgamating the best of influences that came in from contact with other civilizations be it Greece (resulting in Unani Medicine) or Germany (Homeopathy) or our scriptures/sages which gave us the science of Ayurveda, Siddha as well as Yoga & Naturopathy. Like the multifaceted culture in our country, traditional medicines have evolved over centuries blessed with a plethora of traditional medicines and practices. For More Information : Read More

Comments Invited on the AYUSH Survey Report Read More »