The Delhi High Court recently sought the Central government's response to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020.

The PIL has challenged provisions of the Consumer Protection Act which indicate that the national consumer disputes redressal forum can hear appeals challenging orders passed by state fora only if it is satisfied that the case involves a “substantial question of law."

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice in the matter on May 13. The Court has posted the case for further hearing on September 23.

The PIL has been filed by three third year law students along with the Assistant Professor at the Tamil Nadu National Law University.

The petitioners have challenged Section 51(2), 51(3) and 51(4) of the 2019 Act. The provisions state that an appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can only be entertained if it is satisfied that the case involves a “substantial question of law."

However, the PIL highlights that there is no statutory judicial oversight to decide if the case involves a substantial question of law.

The plea also challenges Regulation 12 of the 2020 Regulations. This provision states that when a bench does not have a judicial member and a “complex question of law” arises, and there is no precedent to decide the law point, the matter would be referred to the President of the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.

Entrusting such a function to technical members is manifestly arbitrary and amounts to dilution of core judicial power, the petition states.

The petitioners have, therefore, urged the Court to declare the flagged provisions as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s recent judgment passed in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India.

The petition was drafted by advocates Ankur Singhal and Rhythm Buaria.

Advcoates Ashim Sood, Ankur Singhal, Rhythm Buaria and Senu Nizar appeared for the petitioners.

Central government standing counsel Rukmini Bobde alongwith advocates Vinayak Aren and Aishwarya Nigam appeared for Union of India.

[Read order]