Supreme Court allows closure of low pendency consumer forums

MUMBAI: Sometimes, less really is more, especially when there are fewer than 1,000 cases waiting in line. In a move aimed at making India’s consumer dispute resolution system more efficient, the Supreme Court has allowed states with fewer than 1,000 pending consumer cases to abolish district consumer forums and transfer those matters to serving judicial officers, subject to the approval of the jurisdictional High Court.

The direction came from a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan in an order passed on 22 July, as the court continued to monitor the functioning of consumer commissions across the country.

According to a report by Bar & Bench, the Bench observed that states with a pendency of fewer than 1,000 consumer disputes “shall be at liberty to abolish some of the District Forums and entrust the cases to the serving judicial officers”, provided the proposal receives the concurrence of the jurisdictional High Court.

The court also directed all states and Union Territories to comply with its earlier order issued on 11 February and update the Bench on the measures taken to ensure the smooth functioning of State Consumer Commissions.

Importantly, the judges clarified that officials appointed to consumer commissions should not suffer any reduction in salary or service benefits as a result of any administrative restructuring.

The latest order builds on observations made earlier this year, when several smaller states and Union Territories informed the court that maintaining independent consumer commissions despite a very low caseload was financially unviable.

The Bench had noted that Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur and Goa, along with the Union Territories of Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, had only a few dozen pending consumer disputes, raising questions over the practicality of maintaining separate forums.

To ensure that access to justice is not affected, the Supreme Court had previously directed that pending matters from certain states be transferred to the Registrars General of the respective jurisdictional High Courts. Under that arrangement, a single High Court judge, assisted by the existing technical members, would function as the State Consumer Commission.

The Bench also observed that some states are yet to furnish information sought by the court-appointed amicus curiae regarding the service conditions of members serving on consumer commissions.

The matter is scheduled to come up for further hearing on 13 August, when the Supreme Court is expected to review compliance by states and Union Territories and assess the progress of the reforms.

The latest directions underline the court’s attempt to strike a balance between judicial efficiency and access to consumer justice, ensuring that scarce judicial resources are deployed where they are needed most without compromising the rights of consumers.