SC tells Centre, states to fill consumer court vacancies

Utkarsh Anand and Abraham Thomas

States are defeating laws enacted for the benefits of people, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday as it directed the Union and state governments to fill up around 800 vacancies in consumer courts across the country within eight weeks.

“This is not fair. This is unacceptable. What do you all want? That people should not get redressal under the laws...,” a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy asked the counsel appearing for the Union and states.

“Don’t create hopes when you are unwilling to fulfil aspirations. If you raise hopes that consumers will get their disputes redressed, you have to have adequate number of people to deal with the cases coming up... We can’t leave consumers and citizens to your mercy if you aren’t willing to perform,” it added. The bench has ordered that all vacancies in consumer courts at national, state and district levels be filled up by the Centre, states and Union Territories in eight weeks after duly notifying the rules of appointments, advertising the posts and setting up selection committees.

In a written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha on July 23, the Union minister of state for consumer affairs, Ashwini Kumar Choubey, informed that there were 638 district fora functional in 28 states and 8 Union territories

NEW DELHI:

Aand all 36 state consumer commissions were operational. As of June, 25 presidents and 68 members were appointed in the state commissions whereas 367 presidents and 695 members were working in the district fora.

Taking umbrage at the “dilly dallying” by the Centre and states, the court directed that secretary of the consumer affairs ministry at the Centre and chief secretaries of the state governments remain present through video-conferencing on the next date of hearing if the order on filling up vacant posts is not complied with.

Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Aditya Narain, who assisted the bench as amicus curiae in the case registered by it suo motu, produced a tabular chart showing that district consumer fora have 721 vacant posts including 188 for heads (presidents). Similarly, 72 posts were vacant across the state commissions, including eight for presidents. The national consumer commission has three vacancies.

“This is completely unacceptable. We will call chief secretaries of all states if they aren’t going to complete the job. We have given you enough time to set your house in order. You are not doing it so we will have set your house in order,” said the court while issuing the directives.

The bench also pulled up the Centre for not conducting a legislative impact study before it notified a new consumer protection law in July 2020 and rehauled the entire legal regime, ranging from a wider definition of “consumer,” to enhancing the monetary jurisdiction of the consumer courts at all levels. “Once the legislative committee made these changes, what impact will it have on litigation is the study that should have been carried out. This is the irony of all legislation -- you never do legislative impact study. And now you have written to all the states asking for their views. You are doing a post-facto exercise while you should have done all this before,” the bench told additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi, who appeared for the Centre.

“At least now a comprehensive legislative impact assessment must be carried out,” added the court as it gave the Union government four weeks to undertake the study and submit its report.

ASG Lekhi, on his part, requested for some more time but the bench wasn’t open to this: “You are making legislation at once. If you can rush there, you can always rush here too. It is not that complex. What was a pre-requisite wasn’t done, do it now.”

The court has further directed the Centre and states to file their reports on the existing infrastructure for consumer courts.

The 2019 consumer protection law broadened the meaning of “consumer” allowing them to file a complaint from their place of residence; brought e-commerce platforms within the fold of the law; provided for time-bound redressal; made celebrity-endorsers also liable; and enhanced the monetary jurisdiction of consumer courts at all levels.

The suo motu case was registered on account of “inaction of the government” in appointing members of the consumer courts and providing adequate infrastructure.