Establishes framework for improving infrastructure and procedures in consumer dispute fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. By an order dated 14-1-2016 ( State of U.P. v. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Assn. , 2016 (11) SCC 606 : 2016 (4) SCC (Civ) 473, this Court while dealing with the paucity of infrastructure in the Consumer Fora, constituted a three - member Committee consisting of:
1. Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India.
2. Ms. Justice Rekha Sharma, Former Judge, High Court of Delhi.
3. The Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs or his nominee.

2. The Committee was requested to examine the following aspects:
(1) The infrastructural requirements of the respective State Commissions in terms of office space for the Presiding Officer, members and supporting staff and whether the same has been provided for. In case the requirement is not satisfied, what is the extent of deficiency and possible ways and means of removing the same.
(2) The vacancy position of President / Members / Presiding Officers in the National Commission, State Commissions and the District Fora and the steps that need to be taken for ensuring that vacancies are filled - up on a timely basis.
(3) Need for additional Benches of the National Commission, State Commissions and the District Fora in the States or in any one of them having regard to the workload and the difficulties / inconvenience which a consumer dispute litigant has to face to access the National Commission, State Commissions and / or District Fora.
(4) The conditions of eligibility, if any prescribed, for appointment as non - judicial members of National Commission, State Commissions and the District Fora. In case no such conditions of eligibility are prescribed whether there is a need for doing so and what could be the conditions of eligibility for such appointments having regard to the nature of work and the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
(5) The nature and extent of administrative powers, if any, conferred upon the Presidents of the State Commissions and the President of the District Fora. In case no such powers have been conferred whether the same need to be conferred and if so to what extent and effect.
(6) The service conditions currently applicable including pay scales admissible to President and Members, Judicial / Non - Judicial of the National Commission, State Commissions and the District Fora and in case no service conditions are stipulated what could be reasonable conditions of service applicable to such appointees.
(7) The minimum staff required for the National Commission and respective State Commissions / District Fora and in case no such standard is recognised, or the staff provided is inadequate having regard to the nature and extent of work to be done by the Commissions and Fora concerned what could be the norms for providing the same.
(5) Desirability and feasibility of creating a separate cadre for staff in the National and State Commissions and the District Fora.
(9) Any other aspect that the Committee may consider relevant and helpful with a view to making the Consumer Disputes Fora / Commissions more effective, efficient and their process speedy.

3. The Committee was requested to forward its deliberations to the State Governments, on the completion of their deliberations qua each State to facilitate appropriate steps in a time - bound manner.

4. Thereafter, by an order dated 21-11-2016 (State of U.P. v.AU U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Assn., 2017 (1) SCC 444 : 2017 (1) SCC (Civ) 373), this Court issued the following directions: (All U.P. Consumer Protection case2, SCC pp. 455-56, para 28)
"28.1. The Union Government shall for the purpose of ensuring uniformity in the exercise of the rule - making power under S.10(3) and S.16(2) of the Co