Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 1239

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
In RE: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and ors. & ors. – Respondents
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil No. 2/2021
Decided On : 11-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Aditya Narain, Adv. (AC) Mr. Arnav Narain, AOR Ms. Anushree Narain, Adv. Mr. Arjun Jain, Adv. Mr. Mishra Raj Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Omprakash Ajitsingh Parihar, AOR, Mr. Apruv S., Adv., Mr. Dushyant Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Yudhvir Dalal, Adv., Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. K. K. Venugopal, AG, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SGI, Mr. Aman Lekhi, Ld. ASG, Ms. Neela Kedar Gokhale, Adv., Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv., Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv., Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR, Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ankur Prakash, AOR, Mr. Amit Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv., Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv., Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv., Mr. Gurinder Singh Gill, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. P. Nayak, Adv., Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kuchalia, Adv., Ms. Aashna Gill, Adv., Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Adv., Ms. Bhupinder, Adv., Ms. Vandana Hooda, Adv., Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR, Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG, Haryana, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv., Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv., Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv., Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv., Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv., Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv., Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR, Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv., Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR, Mr. Harpreet Singh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR, Mr. S.C. Verma, Adv. Gen., Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Arjun Nanda, Adv., Ms. Simran Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR, Ms. Sakshi Tibrewal, Adv., Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR, Ms. Vishaka, Adv., Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Sr. Adv./AAG, Mr. Vivek Mahajan, Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv., Mr. Arun Singh, Adv., Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR, Mr. Surinder Singh Manak, Adv., Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, AAG, Ms. Pragya Bahgel, Adv., Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR, Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv., Mr. Rakshit Jain, Adv., Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv., Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv., Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv., Mr. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv., Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR, Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv., Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv., Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv., Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv., Mr. Kiran Kumar Patra, AOR, Mr. Atul Nanda, Adv.G., Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR, Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR, Mr. Vidit Monga, Adv., Ms. Shubhika Saluja, Adv., Mr. Vivek Kolhi, Adv. Gen., Sikkim, Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR, Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR, Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv., Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv., Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv., M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv., Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi,D.AAG, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv., Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv., Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR, Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR, Ms. Palak Mahajan, Adv., Mr. Ankit Roy, Adv., Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv., Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv., Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv., Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv., For M/S. PLR Chambers And Co., AOR, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv., Ms. G. Indira, AOR, Mr. M.K. Mondal, Adv., Mr. Gandeepan, Adv., Mr. Aravindh S., AOR, Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, Adv., Mr. Suyash Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv., Mr. Prakhar Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Gunjeet Singh, Adv., Mr. Piyush Dwivedi, AOR, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, AOR, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR, Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Nishant Verma, Adv., Mr. Harpreet Singh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Aravindh Selvaraj, AOR

The Court emphasized the critical need for timely appointments and operational infrastructure for consumer dispute redressal bodies, directing states to comply with the Consumer Protection Act requirements swiftly.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Inaction in appointing officials to Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions - Petition filed revealing numerous vacancies and failure to establish necessary infrastructure - States directed to notify rules for appointments within two weeks and to advertise vacancies within the same time frame - Emphasis placed on the proper establishment and functioning of commissions to empower consumers effectively. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 9, 10)

(B) Legislative Intent - This intent must be translated into an operational administrative framework to handle consumer complaints effectively. (Paras 1, 6)

(C) Compliance - Serious non-compliance observed with respect to existing rules and conditions, necessitating direct orders from the Court for timely appointments and adherence to established procedures. (Paras 4, 11)

Table of Content
1. consumer empowerment and infrastructure inadequacy (Para 1)
2. emphasis on timely state inputs (Para 2)
3. states directed to notify rules under the act (Para 3)
4. constitution of selection committees mandated (Para 4)
5. filling vacancies mandated within a time frame (Para 5)
6. legislative mandate on commission composition (Para 6)
7. last minute filings resented; urgency for clear updates (Para 7)
8. response format requirement from states (Para 8)
9. partial compliance with information submission noted (Para 9)
10. accountability for non-compliance stressed (Para 10)
11. union territories' obligation to respond highlighted (Para 11)
12. future directions expected for compliance (Para 12)

JUDGMENT :

1.The empowerment of the consumers has been a continuing process with the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and its current legislative version in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. That is the Legislative intent. However, the ground reality is quite different as there is little endeavour to translate this Legislative intent into an administrative infrastructure with requisite facilities, members and staff to facilitate the decision on the consumer complaints. Statistics can be deceptive but sometimes statistics reveal the truth. The position prevalent in the State Consumer Forums and the District Consumer Forums is best reflected by the statistics of existing vacancies, insofar as the Chairman and the members are concerned. A Chart has been prepared by the learned Amicus Curiae reflecting the position as under:

“II. Status of vacancies in State Commissions

S. No.	Name of State/UT	Date on which response filed	President: Whether post occupied	Member: Total posts notified as per S.42(3) (b)	Member vacancies: Current+ potential (next 6 months)
1.	A&N Islands	09.04.2021 05.08.2021	Yes^$	NA (4 existing)^$	4^$
2	Andhra Pradesh	09.04.2021 28.07.2021	Yes	4	3+1
3.	Assam	09.04.2021	Yes	Not done (2 existing)	2
4.	Bihar	09.04.2021	Yes	NA	4
5.	Chandigarh	11.04.2021	Yes	4	2^#
6.	Dadra & Nagar Haveli	09.03.2021	No	4(2 existing)	4
7.	Delhi	05.05.2021 10.08.2021	Yes	NA (4 existing)	3
8.	Goa	29.04.2021	Yes	4	3
9.	Gujarat	09.04.2021	Yes	8	2+1
10.	Haryana	30.03.2021	Yes	4	1
11.	Himachal Pradesh	09.04.2021 26.04.2021	No	NA (2 existing)	0
12.	Jharkhand	03.05.2021 05.08.2021	No	4	2+2
13.	Lakshadweep	31.03.2021 04.05.2021	Yes	2	2
14.	Madhya Pradesh	22.03.2021 05.07.2021	Yes	Not done	3
15.	Maharashtra	23.04.2021	No	11	6+1
16.	Manipur	09.04.2021	No	NA (2 existing)	0+1
17.	Meghalaya	09.04.2021	No	4	4
18.	Mizoram	09.04.2021 13.07.2021	Yes	Not done (2 existing)	1
19.	Nagaland	09.04.2021	No	2	0
20.	Odisha	09.04.2021 04.08.2021	Yes	4	4
21.	Puducherry	06.07.2021	Yes	Not done (2 existing)	2+2^#
22.	Punjab	09.04.2021 28.06.2021	No (fell vacant in July 2021)	4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 1239

The Court emphasized the critical need for timely appointments and operational infrastructure for consumer dispute redressal bodies, directing states to comply with the Consumer Protection Act requirements swiftly.

Related Judgments

In RE: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India VS Union of India - 2021 Supreme(SC) 1239

State of U.P. vs All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Assn. - 2018 Supreme(Online)(SC) 3432

Shivdev Singh VS State Of Punjab - 2021 Supreme(P&H) 443

Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe VS Union Of India - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1668

Daleep Singh Kaith vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 759

In Re: Inaction of the Governments in Appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Inadequate Infrastructure Across India VS . - 2022 Supreme(SC) 815

Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs VS Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye - 2023 2 Supreme 559

PAY AND ALLOWANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE U.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 308

Mohan Prasad (since Deceased) Through His Lrs Sh. Yogesh VS Employees State Insurance Corporation - 2022 Supreme(Del) 289

Rutu Mihir Panchal VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 740