Swastik Ayurved Pharma Limited is one of the largest producers of Herbal and Ayurvedic products in India. To expand its market share, Swastik regularly advertised the claimed benefits of its products. These advertisement

Swastik Ayurved Pharma Limited is one of the largest producers of Herbal and Ayurvedic products in India. To expand its market share, Swastik regularly advertised the claimed benefits of its products. These advertisements promoted the products as having medicinal properties and the ability to cure ailments without side effects. However, the advertisements lacked any scientific evidence to support such claims. Relying upon these advertisements, Rajeev, a consumer, purchased the products. The products, however, turned out to be ineffective and did not match the claims made in the advertisements. Rajeev, the complainant, lodged a complaint with the Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of India, alleging that the advertisements released by the company were misleading, false, and deceptive, intended to misguide the general public, and in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mandates that advertisements must be truthful and not misleading. Further, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) also found the advertisements to be misleading and in violation of its regulations. It was contended that the company and its directors should be held liable for such misleading and deceptive advertisements. The case was ultimately referred to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by way of a special leave to appeal. From the above case study, answer the following questions as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Can the producer and its directors be penalized for issuing false or misleading advertisements under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?