Supreme Court orders uniform pay for Consumer Forum Members across India

The Supreme Court on Monday directed that presidents and members of district and state consumer commissions across India be paid uniform salary and allowances [In Re: Pay and Allowances of members of the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission].A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that different pay structures across the states had created disparities, affecting the financial security and independence of consumer forum members..The Court thus passed several key directions to address this,Pay Parity for State Commission Members: The Court directed that members of state commissions should receive salaries and allowances equivalent to District Judges in the super time pay scale, as prescribed by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission. The Court clarified that allowances mentioned in the Model Rules, such as house rent, transport, and medical allowances, would not apply, as the pay and allowances prescribed under the court directions would override them. Uniform Pay for District Commission Presidents: Similarly, the Court directed that presidents of district commissions will receive pay and allowances equivalent to District Judges in the super time pay scale, as prescribed by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission. The Court reiterated that allowances under the Model Rules of 2020 would not apply in these cases as well. Salaries for District Commission Members: The Court directed that members of district commissions will receive pay and allowances equivalent to District Judges in the selection grade, as prescribed by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission, with similar exemptions from the Model Rules. Protection of Last Drawn Salaries: The Court emphasised that the last drawn pay of presidents and members, if higher than the prescribed pay under these directions, must be protected, minus any pension, if applicable. The Court noted that this protection was essential to avoid financial hardship for members who had served as judges or government officers before joining the commissions. No Distinction Based on Full-Time or Part-Time Status: The Court rejected the idea of distinguishing between part-time and full-time members or judicial versus non-judicial members for the purposes of pay and allowances, stating that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, does not contemplate such distinctions. All individuals performing these duties are to be treated as full-time members, as per the Court order..The Court ordered that the revised pay and allowances be effective from July 2020, with all arrears to be paid within six months. It further directed the States and union territories to amend their rules under Section 102 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to conform with these directives.However, the Court also clarified that if any State or union territory is currently paying more than what is prescribed, such higher remuneration will remain protected..The directions were passed on a batch of multiple petitions, including one filed by a retired district judge, seeking salary parity between Consumer Forum members and District Judges. The Court had previously observed that the disparity in pay scales undermined the efficiency of the consumer dispute redressal system, which is critical for the effective implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. .Earlier, on January 7, the Court had directed the Union of India to act on suggestions submitted by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter. The suggestions included amending the Model Rules to ensure minimum salaries for retired or serving district judges and government officers appointed as consumer forum members, along with a 3 percent annual increment and arrears from August 18, 2018, for those who served before the Model Rules came into force in 2020. The Centre had also been asked to take a decision on these suggestions, failing which the Court indicated it would consider exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution..The Court earlier had also noted that members of these commissions in some states were receiving only nominal amounts, with some earning as little as five figures.This, the Court had observed, was incompatible with the role and responsibilities of such members, who are expected to resolve complex consumer disputes with significant financial implications..The matter is now listed for reporting compliance on September 22, 2025. .[Read Live Coverage]