Supreme Court permits States with less than 1,000 consumer cases to wind up few District Consumer Forums

The Supreme Court recently observed that States with less than 1,000 pending consumer disputes may abolish some District Consumer Forums and transfer those cases to serving judicial officers subject to the approval of the jurisdictional High Court.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observation as part of the Court's continuing oversight of the functioning of Consumer Commissions across the country, including issues relating to appointments, service conditions and infrastructure.

"All those States where the total pendency is less than 1,000 cases shall be at liberty to abolish some of the District Forums and entrust the cases to the serving judicial officers, with the prior concurrence of the jurisdictional High Court(s)," the Court said in an order passed on July 22.

The clarification came while monitoring compliance with its earlier directions governing the constitution of State and District Consumer Commissions and the service conditions of their chairpersons and members.

In an order passed on February 11, the Court had noted that several smaller States and Union Territories had informed the Court that maintaining separate Consumer Commissions despite very low case pendency was financially unviable.

Referring to States such as Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, Goa and the Union Territories of Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the Court had observed that some had only a few dozen pending consumer disputes. It has also noted that others did not have duly constituted State Commissions headed by a sitting or former High Court judge.

To ensure consumers were not left without a remedy, the Court had on February 11 directed that pending cases from certain States be transferred to the Registrars General of the jurisdictional High Courts. A single-judge of the High Court, along with the existing technical members, would then hear the cases as a deemed State Commission.

It had also permitted States and Union Territories with fewer than 1,000 pending complaints and appeals to submit alternative proposals for providing an effective consumer dispute resolution mechanism.

In the July 22 order, the Court clarified that States with fewer than 1,000 pending cases could abolish some District Consumer Forums. Their cases may instead be heard by serving judicial officers with the prior approval of the jurisdictional High Court.

Additionally, the Court directed all States to comply with its earlier order of February and inform the Bench of the arrangements they had made to ensure the functioning of State Consumer Commissions.

The Court also examined compliance with its earlier direction requiring States to ensure that officials appointed to Consumer Commissions do not suffer a reduction in pay. It noted that only Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat had amended their rules.

Several other States had either failed to do so or had sought modification of the order. Therefore, the Court granted affected parties two weeks to respond to the modification applications. Further, it directed States that had neither complied nor sought modification to do so within the same period and file compliance reports.

The Court also found that some States had still not provided information sought by the court-appointed amicus curiae on the service conditions of Consumer Commission members. It directed those States to submit the information and file status reports before the next hearing and warned that no further extension would be given.

The matter will be heard next on August 13.

Senior Advocate Kiran Suri appeared for four retired members of the Uttar Pradesh District Consumer Forum.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan assisted by advocate Aditya Narain served as amicus curiae.

[Read Order]