The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed serious concern over delays in the disposal of consumer disputes, questioning the functioning of consumer commissions across the country and directing the President of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to submit a detailed report on the mounting pendency.

The matter came up before the court in a suo motu proceeding concerning the pay and allowances of members of consumer commissions. During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India raised concerns over what he described as the “very disturbing” state of affairs in the consumer redressal system.

CJI Surya Kant referred to a news report stating that a consumer case, filed in 2019, was listed only once in 2022 and had not received another hearing date even by the middle of 2026

“If this is the performance, then what kind of special expert forum have we constituted for consumer redressal? If more and more perks and facilities are given and there is no performance...” the CJI questioned.

The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed the NCDRC President to provide information on the total pendency of cases, the composition and strength of the Commission, its average disposal rate and the estimated time required to clear the pending matters.

The report has been sought within two weeks. The Court also directed that information relating to pendency before State Consumer Commissions be furnished separately, with the Department of Consumer Affairs of the respective State governments assisting in compiling the data.

The Supreme Court also directed the Presidents of State Consumer Commissions to conduct an evaluation of the performance of all District Consumer Commissions under their respective jurisdictions for the last three years.

Issues have been highlighted with respect to the poor performance of the consumer commissions including the National Consumer Commission. There is delay in progress of the pending matters and even hearings are not taking place for years. We request the President of the National Consumer Commission to send a report with respect to the total tendency of cases, composition of the commission, average disposal of matters, the estimated time likely to be taken in disposal of the pending matters. We will appreciate if the report is sent within 2 weeks. Information to be furnished separately with respect to the pendency of cases before the State Consumer Commission. The Department of Consumer Affairs of the state governments will also assist in collation of the information.

The Court also questioned whether members of consumer commissions are subject to any meaningful performance evaluation, raising concerns about accountability when retired judges are appointed to such bodies.

The CJI questioned whether the commissions were becoming a “rehabilitation centre” for retired judges if appointments were not accompanied by accountability and performance assessment.

"Unfortunately, this aspect has not really been seen. In the district consumer forum, there is a quality crisis. They don't bother about what is the nature of the complaint and how merits are to be decided. In State Commission, probably our impression is that there are not many arrears, but after the matter is decided it ultimately lands up in the National Commission and this is how the arrears are piled up...there are two issues: one is lack of infrastructue and second is deficiency in appointments. Is there any performance evaluation? That is what is bothering us. That is it becoming a rehabilitation centre because you appoint a retired judge and then you are not accountable? That is not acceptable to us," CJI said.

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan agreed that a system of performance evaluation was necessary. He suggested that a mechanism could be developed to assess the performance of members, with assistance from counsel appearing in the proceedings.

The CJI suggested that increasing the strength of the NCDRC could be one way of addressing the growing backlog. It also raised the possibility of establishing circuit benches in locations where consumer complaints are particularly numerous.

At the same time, the CJI made clear that accountability could not come at the expense of basic working conditions.

The CJI said it should not be the case that members are expected to function without adequate facilities or are subjected to undue stress because essential support staff and infrastructure are unavailable.

The amicus pointed out that even basic facilities such as women's toilets were reportedly absent in several consumer commission premises.

Case : IN RE PAY AND ALLOWANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE U.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION | W.P.(C) No. 1144/2021