The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has ordered Amazon to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh for allowing sweets and food products masquerading as “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad” to be sold on its platform without permission from the Ram Mandir Trust.
“A marketplace entity cannot selectively invoke its intermediary status under the IT Act to escape consumer protection obligations while simultaneously deriving commercial benefits from the transactions on its platform,” the regulator said.
How did Amazon come under CCPA’s radar? In 2024, the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) reported the matter to Union Consumer Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi, who referred it to the CCPA.
What was alleged? CAIT alleged that Amazon Seller Services, which operates Amazon’s online marketplace in India, engaged in deceptive trade practices by permitting the listing and sale of commercially produced sweets under the false and misleading label of Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad.
- The products were allegedly marketed as an exclusive offering tied to Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir in Ayodhya, without any authorisation, affiliation or endorsement from the temple or the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Trust.
- The complaint described it as a deliberate attempt to exploit religious sentiments of devotees and consumers across the country for commercial gain.
Instamart was also selling Ram Mandir prasad: Items marketed as Ram Mandir prasad were also being sold on Swiggy Instamart at one point, according to a MediaNama analysis. However, such product listings are now unavailable. We could not ascertain exactly when the listings were taken down.
Furthermore, a host of websites continue to sell prasad, claiming that it is from the Ram temple in Ayodhya. These include Ayodhya Prasadam, Kara Gifting, Ayodhya Dham Mart and World of Devotion, among others. If the Consumer Affairs Ministry is aware of these listings, why has it not taken any action against them?
In 2024, the Delhi High Court ordered the suspension of a website that defrauded people out of their hard-earned money under the pretext of delivering them Ram temple prasad for free. The website’s name was www.khadiorganic.com.
What did CCPA’s investigation into Amazon reveal? An inquiry by the CCPA found that multiple sweets and food products were being actively listed and sold on Amazon under names predominantly using the phrases “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad” and “Ayodhya Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad”.
- The consumer watchdog specifically names four varieties of sweets listed by Chandu Trading Company under the brand Bihar Brothers. These include ghee ladoos, khoya ladoos, boondi ladoos and cow milk pedas.
- The disputed listings used religious imagery and claimed that the products carried “Blessings from Shree Ram Janam Bhumi Temple, Ayodhya”, misleading consumers into believing that they were tied to the temple. The ingredient column described the contents as “Ram Mandir Prasad”. The CCPA noted that this was a misleading and non-factual description of the actual contents of the products.
- To be sure, the listings are no longer available on Amazon. The platform removed them following a show-cause notice issued by the CCPA in 2024.
Amazon invoked safe harbour protection under the IT Act: Amazon maintained that it was merely a marketplace intermediary and had no role in listing, pricing, describing or selling the products. It invoked the safe harbour protection under Section 79(1) of the IT Act, adding that the liability lies with third-party sellers to ensure the accuracy and legality of listings.
- It also relied upon Shreya Singhal v. Union of India to contend that “actual knowledge” under Section 79 (3)(b) means knowledge only by court order, and that intermediaries are not required to pre-screen content.
- Amazon went on to argue that by taking down disputed listings and disclosing seller’s details via a hyperlink, it had fully discharged its obligations under the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020.
IT Act and E-commerce Rules operate on distinct legal planes, says CCPA:The consumer watchdog rejected Amazon’s safe harbour defence for five reasons:
(i) E-commerce Rules are implemented under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a statute independent of the IT Act.
“Obligations under Rule 4(3) and Rule 5(3)(a) are platform-level consumer protection duties owed directly to consumers. They are not contingent upon, nor dischargeable by, the intermediary safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act. Compliance with one regime does not discharge obligations under the other,” said the CCPA.
Rule 4(3) prohibits unfair trade practices on e-commerce marketplaces, regardless of whether platforms have prior knowledge of a specific violation. Meanwhile, Rule 5(3)(a) mandates marketplace entities to continuously and prominently display seller details on the platform at all times.
(ii)The safe harbour provision under Section 79 of the IT Act shields an intermediary from liability for third-party content. It does not grant it immunity from its own independent statutory obligations of due diligence, seller disclosure and grievance redressal under E-commerce Rules.
(iii) The regulator noted that Amazon’s reliance on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India was “misplaced”.
“That judgment was rendered in the context of free speech and expression under Article 19 it was not decided in the context of 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,” it said.
(iv) The CCPA held that a marketplace entity that commercially gains from transactions facilitated on its platform cannot simultaneously claim complete insulation from responsibility by positioning itself as a mere conduit. Sales from the aforementioned four products generated Rs 39,802, from which Amazon received Rs 15,165 as a service fee.
(v) Merely delegating the compliance burden to third-party sellers through contracts does not free Amazon from its statutory obligations under the E-commerce Rules.
Amazon directed to ask verifiable proof of authorisation before listing products claiming to be prasad: “The Authority observes that the phrase ‘Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad’ carries a specific and well-understood meaning for Hindu devotees where it denotes sacred food offered to and blessed by the deity at the Ram Mandir, Ayodhya. The commercial appropriation of this phrase for ordinary confectionery products, without any authorisation from the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, constitutes not just a misleading trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act but an affront to the religious sentiments of crores of consumers,” CCPA’s order reads.
- Amazon has been directed by the regulator not to list products claiming to be “prasad”, “prasadam”, “mahaprasad”, “bhog” or similar religious offerings without verifiable proof of authorisation.
- The order covers 10 religious institutions, including the Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine, Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Jagannath Temple.
- Amazon has also been asked to prominently display seller and grievance officer details and strengthen its keyword-based monitoring and takedown mechanism.
MediaNama has reached out to CAIT for comments. The story will be updated upon receiving a response.
- Amazon filed its dark pattern declaration months late, we still found violations
