Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, CJ, Joymalya Bagchi, J
PAY AND ALLOWANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE U.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1144/2021 | Contempt Petition(C) No.57/2026
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Supreme Court addressed the challenges faced by smaller states and union territories in establishing and maintaining full-fledged State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions due to low complaint pendency and financial constraints (!) (!) .
The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure effective redressal of consumer grievances in these regions, emphasizing the importance of timely adjudication (!) .
To facilitate this, the Court directed the respective State Governments and Administrations to transfer the records of pending complaints and appeals to the High Court Registrars within a specified period (!) .
The High Courts are to assign these records to a learned Single Judge, who will act as a deemed Chairperson of the State Commission, with the assistance of existing Technical Members, to expedite the disposal of cases within three months (!) .
If parties are dissatisfied with the Single Judge's order, they may approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is to entrust such matters to its own Bench, ensuring that decisions are made by a sitting or former High Court Judge acting as Chairperson (!) .
The Court highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory rules, including the mandatory inclusion of a woman Member in the composition of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (!) (!) .
The Court acknowledged concerns raised by some States regarding the financial and administrative viability of constituting full commissions given low complaint volumes. As a response, it permitted States with fewer than 1000 pending cases to propose alternative redress mechanisms (!) .
The Court emphasized that the directions aim to prevent consumer grievances from remaining unaddressed and to ensure access to justice, even in regions with limited complaint activity (!) .
All interlocutory applications seeking modifications to the Court’s directions shall be listed for hearing on a future date, with the Court's registry ensuring proper scheduling (!) .
The Court also expressed the intention to seek assistance from the Solicitor General of India and directed the registry to inform the office accordingly, including relevant model rules issued by the Central Government under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (!) (!) .
These points encapsulate the Court's approach to balancing effective consumer dispute resolution with administrative and financial considerations in low-complaint regions, leveraging constitutional provisions to ensure timely justice.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. state commissions' viability in low-complaint areas. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. adjudication orders under article 142 for consumer disputes. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. ensuring adherence to membership qualifications. (Para 8) |
ORDER
1. This batch of matters pertains to the constitution of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(s) (‘State Commission’) and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(s) (‘District Commission’) as well as the prescription of the conditions of service of the Chairperson and Members appointed at different levels therein. In the course of giving effect to certain interim directions issued by this Court on 19.05.2025, it has transpired that a few States do not find it viable to constitute the State Commission and/or to have a District Commission in every district. Such a plea is founded upon the limited total pendency before the State Commission or the District Commissions.
2. While there are multiple issues that need to be addressed effectively, as of now, we propose to deal with some of the smaller States. Apropos thereof, we find that the instant issues need to be examined primarily within the contours of our powers under
3. For illustration, we may refer in brief to some of the States/Union Territories before us, in seriatim
i. In the State of Arunachal Pradesh, there are a total of 59 cases pending before the District Commission or the State Commission. Due to such low pendency, the State Government has taken a stand that the constitution of a State Commission or even a District Commission will lead to an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on the State Exchequer;
ii. Similarly, in the State of Sikkim, 52 complaints are stated to be pending before the District Commission, while only 12 complaints/appeals are pending before the State Commission;
In the State of Tripura, there are about 316 complaints pending before the four District Commissions, and 46 complaints/appeals pending before the State Commission. Moreover, in Sikkim as well as in Tripura, there are two Technical Members, still serving in the State Commission, but there is no Chairperson at both the places, who must necessarily be a sitting or former Judge of the High Court;
iii. In the State of Mizoram, there are about 82 complaints pending before the District Commission and 12 complaints/appeals pending before the State Commission. We are informed that there is a State Commission presided over by a Judicial Member, but all members, including the Chairperson are working only on a part-time basis;
iv. In the State of Manipur, 123 complaints are pending before the District Commission, while there are 43 complaints/appeals pending before the State Commission;
v. In the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, there are fewer than 10 cases currently pending at the Commission/Forum level and we are informed that the President of the Kerala State Consumer Commission has been given additional charge of this region. That arrangement seems to be perfectly in order;
vi. In the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands also there are 37 complaints statedly pending before the District Commission, whereas only 4 complaints/appeals are pending before the State Commission. We are also informed that the Registrar of the High Court of Calcutta, Port Blair Bench has been given additional charge of the District Commission. So far as the District Commission is concerned, even this arrangement is perfectly in order;
vii. In the State of Goa, we are informed that there are 39 complaints/appeals pending before the State Commission and there is no President appointed, who qualifies the condition of being a sitting or former Judge of the High Court;
4. It may be seen that in most of the above-mentioned States, either there is no President of the State Commission possessing the pre-requisite qualification of being a sitting or former Judge of the High Court, or the Commission itself has not been
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
