Supreme Court Deploys Constitutional Arsenal to Rescue Consumer Justice in Tiny States

In a pragmatic move blending fiscal realism with consumer rights, the Supreme Court of India invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. A bench led by the Chief Justice of India alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed smaller states and Union Territories grappling with minimal case backlogs to hand over pending consumer disputes to their jurisdictional High Courts. Single judges will step in as "deemed" Chairpersons of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, ensuring no one is left remediless.

This order emerged from the ongoing suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1144/2021 , titled In Re: Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , addressing broader issues in constituting and staffing consumer forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 .

The Pendency Predicament: Too Few Cases, Too High Stakes

The case originated as a public interest litigation scrutinizing pay, allowances, and operational viability of State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Earlier interim directions on May 19, 2025—stemming from Model Rules under Section 102(1) of the 2019 Act—mandated full-time appointments, including a High Court judge or former judge as Chairperson. But for smaller states, this proved burdensome.

States like Arunachal Pradesh (59 total cases), Sikkim (52 district + 12 state), Tripura (316 district + 46 state, sans Chairperson), Mizoram (82 district + 12 state, part-time members), Manipur (123 district + 43 state), Lakshadweep (<10 cases, Kerala President in charge), Andaman & Nicobar (37 district + 4 state), and Goa (39 state matters, no qualified President) argued low volumes made full setups "not viable," straining exchequers and risking forum invalidity.

Reports from legal portals echoed this, highlighting how these regions' sparse caseloads—often under 100 per forum—clashed with rigid staffing norms, leaving appeals in limbo.

States Cry Foul on Costs, Court Balances Scales

State governments contended that full-time commissions impose an "extreme financial burden," potentially disrupting structures. Multiple interlocutory applications sought tweaks to the 2025 order, with counsel like Additional Advocates General emphasizing disproportionate costs for negligible dockets.

On the Court's side—by its own motion in this PIL—it prioritized access to justice. Without Chairpersons (requiring High Court judicial experience), forums were defunct, rendering complaints "otiose." The bench weighed this against exchequer pleas, opting for an interim bridge via High Courts while listing modification pleas for February 26, 2026.

No precedents were explicitly cited, but the ruling leans on Article 142's inherent equity powers to craft "complete justice" solutions, sidestepping statutory rigidities in the 2019 Act.

Article 142 in Action: High Courts to the Rescue

The Court dissected the crisis: absent qualified Presidents or entire commissions, maintainable appeals piled up despite slim numbers. Invoking Article 142, it crafted a workaround distinguishing full setups from ad hoc adjudication.

Key directives: - States/UTs transfer State Commission records to High Court Registrar Generals within two weeks . - Chief Justices assign to a Single Judge , deemed "Chairperson," assisted by existing Technical Members (ensuring woman member inclusion per rules). - Dispose within three months . - National Commission President to hear appeals on their bench, respecting High Court involvement.

States with <1,000 pending cases can propose alternatives. The bench summoned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta 's input, forwarding the 2025 order and Model Rules.

This sidesteps financial woes without diluting consumer remedies, potentially reshaping forum ops in low-volume areas.

"Consequently, with a view to ensure that the consumer complaints or statutory appeals are not rendered otiose and that the complainants/appellants aren’t left remediless, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India."

"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."

"The learned Single Judge will invite the other Technical Members, who are already functioning, to complete the forum and decide these complaints/appeals at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months."

A Flexible Future for Consumer Forums?

The order disposes specific IAs while fast-tracking modifications. Practically, it unclogs dockets in fringe regions—Lakshadweep's Kerala tie-up and Andamans' Port Blair arrangement already align. Future-wise, it signals judicial creativity for under-resourced forums, mandating rule-compliant compositions (e.g., woman members) and opening doors to tailored mechanisms.

As states gear up transfers, this ruling underscores: justice adapts, even in low-volume lands.