CJI Surya Kant Questions Consumer Forums Over Pendency

Supreme Court seeks performance reports as consumer commissions face a huge backlog of cases.

The Supreme Court has given consumer commissions across India a performance audit based on the increasing number of consumer cases pending and the functioning of these forums.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, questioned whether consumer commissions had turned into “rehabilitation centres” for retired judges and judicial officers without proper accountability.

The court said that appointing retired district and High Court judges to consumer forums cannot be treated simply as a post-retirement arrangement. It added that those working in these commissions must also be evaluated on their performance.

Supreme Court seeks three-year performance report

The Supreme Court has directed the presidents of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and state consumer commissions to assess their performance over the last three years.

The reports will contain information on the number of pending cases, disposal rates and the time to clear up the backlog.

The court also asked the president of the National Consumer Commission to submit a report within two weeks. The report will include the total number of pending cases, the composition of the commission, the average number of cases disposed of by different benches and whether more judges or benches are needed.

CJI Raises Questions About Accountability

In the hearing, the bench said it was concerned about the lack of accountability in consumer commissions.

The court questioned whether retired judges appointed to these bodies were being properly evaluated for their work. And in this case, it said: “Simply appointing former judges and providing infrastructure would not solve the problem if cases were still pending.”The bench stressed that a proper performance evaluation system is required in consumer disputes.

Infrastructure and Appointments Also a Concern

The Supreme Court identified two major issues affecting consumer commissions— inadequate infrastructure and problems with appointments.

The bench also had concerns about the quality of decisions at district consumer commissions. Some forums may not pay enough attention to disputes and decisions about disputes on the merits, the court said.The court also observed that even when state commissions do not have a large backlog, cases often move to the National Consumer Commission through appeals, adding to the pressure on the NCDRC.

The Court Asks for a Report on Oldest Pending Cases

The senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who is also representing the Supreme Court as amicus curiae, has also been asked to submit a report.

The report will examine the functioning and pendency of state consumer commissions. It will also include details of some of the oldest cases that are still pending.The move aims to give the court a clear picture of how consumer disputes are being handled across different levels of the system.Over 5.9 Lakh Consumer Cases Pending

The scale of the problem is highlighted by government data presented in Parliament last month.According to figures, 5,93,109 consumer cases were pending across the country.

The pending cases included:

16,915 cases before the NCDRC, 1,27,507 cases before state consumer commissions, 4,48,687 cases before district consumer commissions.

The numbers show that district consumer commissions account for the largest share of the pending cases.

More Benches May Be Needed

During the hearing, the Supreme Court said if cases continue to pile up at the National Consumer Commission, the government may need to increase its strength and create additional benches.

But the court was in no doubt that simply adding infrastructure or facilities would not be enough.

According to the bench, better infrastructure must be accompanied by accountability and improved performance.

Why the Supreme Court’s Move Matters

Consumer commissions are supposed to provide people with a faster and simpler way to resolve disputes involving products and services. Long delays can defeat the purpose of the consumer protection system.

The Supreme Court’s latest intervention is to make these forums more accountable and to improve the functioning and to get the backlog of cases down.

The three-year performance audit could therefore give a clearer picture of where consumer commissions are facing problems and what steps are needed to speed up the disposal of cases.