Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by an influencer named Amandeep Singh for an FIR registered under Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 for injuring 71 people with his herbal hair oil, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., rejected the plea, holding that the present matter was yet another unfortunate example of internet-famous, unqualified quacks taking advantage of common man’s insecurities. The Court also stated that advertising a product that makes tall, misleading claims without any scientific evidence or clinical testing to back it up must be strictly condemned.
Background
Allegedly, Amandeep, a hairstylist and influencer with about 86.9 thousand followers, ran advertisements on Facebook and Instagram regarding his herbal hair oil, claiming it would help overcome baldness. The advertisements further stated that he would be holding a camp regarding the oil. Amandeep also applied for a patent for the said hair oil. At the camp, he sold one bottle of the said hair oil with a bottle of shampoo for Rs. 1300.
At the camp, Amandeep applied the hair oil on the complainant’s head and asked him to wash it after five minutes. However, after the complainant washed his head, his eyes started burning, and his face swelled up. The complainant went to the Civil Hospital, Sangrur, where he found that 60-70 people had arrived with identical complaints.
Consequently, an FIR was registered, and hence, the present application.
The Court was informed that the Senior Medical Officer (‘SMO’) told the police about the admission of 71 injured people at the Civil Hospital after using the oil manufactured by Amandeep. The SMO opined that the cause of the reaction was severe contact dermatitis, i.e., a kind of conjunctivitis caused by contact with an irritant. Further, while the injuries were simple, vision loss could have occurred if the cornea had been involved.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that about 500 persons attended the event, and as many as 71 of them faced severe irritation in the eyes due to the use of the said oil. The severity of the discomfort caused therefrom could be ascertained from the fact that they had to rush to the Civil Hospital for immediate treatment.
The Court remarked, “Beauty, in spite of being fleeting and superficial in nature, has beguiled mankind since time immemorial.”
The Court further stated that the desperation to look attractive and save the receding hairline had a chokehold on men and women alike, even today. The Court held that the present matter was another unfortunate example of internet-famous, unqualified quacks taking advantage of the common man’s insecurities. The Court also stated that One cannot overlook the role played by the so-called beauty and fitness influencers in setting unrealistic standards by creating a make-believe world. In a bid to meet these fickle societal standards of beauty, vulnerable people go to extreme lengths and even undergo risky procedures. The constant pressure to look a certain way often has a deleterious effect on the mental health of children and adults alike.
The Court added that in this day and age, where social media and marketing agendas deeply affect one’s self-esteem, we, as a society, must endeavour to promote authenticity over curated perfection. The public was ready and willing to invest in products that were in vogue, however ineffective they may be.
The Court further opined that a product must only be introduced in the market after ensuring its safety and determining possible side effects, to avoid or mitigate any harm. In that vein, advertising a product making tall, misleading claims, without any scientific evidence or clinical testing to back it up, must be strictly condemned. Maintenance of general public health and a sense of trust in the market was a duty of the State that must be performed with utmost sincerity.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.
[Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 21045 of 2025, decided on 12-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Paras Talwar
For the respondent: Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab