Author: Shalini Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, CSJM University, Kanpur
To the Point
Consumer justice in India is at a crossroads. Even as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, has a progressive ethos to it, ground reality is marred by delays, under-staffed forums, and restricted access for ordinary citizens. Hyperbolic commentary on these existing realities, the Supreme Court of India has recently issued landmark guidelines with a view to revamping the existing consumer dispute redressal system. In a suo motu case, the Court asked the Union Government to consider setting up permanent consumer courts with full-time judges and providing fixed minimum tenures to members. The Court also pointed out that selection committees should be dominated by judicial members to prevent dilution of institutional integrity and independence.”. These remarks are prompted by systemic frailties — for instance, lengthy case pendencies, congested hearings, and infrastructural weaknesses — that mar the performance of consumer forums at the district, state, and national levels. Reforms that are proposed are intended not just to accelerate justice but also to rebuild consumer faith in the judicial process. This section sets the stage for understanding why immediate legislative and judicial intervention needs to be undertaken in order to revamp India’s consumer justice system, ensuring that consumers’ rights are not merely theoretical but really enforced.
Use of Legal Jargon
To be able to understand the present legal discourse on consumer justice reform, it is essential to become acquainted with some key legal words and principles that are framing the debate:
Consumer Fora: They are quasi-judicial forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 at the national, state, and district levels. They should resolve the consumer disputes in a cost and time effective way.
Suo Motu Cognizance: Literally meaning “on its own motion” in Latin, it denotes jurisdiction of courts, especially constitutional courts such as the Supreme Court of India, to initiate proceedings in the public interest without a complaint. In this case, the higher court acted suo motu to rectify systemic pendency in dispensation of consumer justice.
Quasi-Judicial Power: Consumer commissions are quasi-judicial commissions having powers akin to a civil court in some matters. They can call witnesses, take statements of evidence, and make binding orders but are not part of the normal judiciary.
Power of Jurisdiction (Article 32 & 226): These constitutional articles confer writ jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and High Courts, for the granting of writs to guarantee fundamental rights. These have been used in cases involving consumer rights where institutional failures have breached constitutional guarantees.
Principles of Natural Justice: These are the audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one judge in his own case) principles that constitute the essence of impartial adjudication in cases involving consumers.
Article 142 of the Constitution: Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass any order or decree that may be required to achieve “complete justice.” The article was recently used in regard to enabling the functioning of consumer redressal forums. In addressing these concepts of law, the court is pushing the argument away from simplistic infrastructure solutions towards ensuring that the regime of consumer protection itself is constitutionally robust, accessible, and equitable.
The Proof
Consumer justice reform is not idealism — it has judicial dicta, fact-based evidence, and law that speaks to a crisis-ridden system. In May 2025, hearing cases about vacancies and inefficiency in consumer courts, the Supreme Court of India used its Article 142 powers to suggest an arsenal of radical structural reforms. They were:
Setting up permanent consumer courts instead of ad-hoc committees.
Appointment of full-time members of the judiciary and professionally trained staff.
Setting up judicially governed selection committees to ensure professionalism and impartiality.
Granting a minimum 5-year term to members of consumer forums to ensure continuity.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 had contemplated a reasonable and time-bound redressal mechanism at a cost, but the forums that currently exist are affected with pendency. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) statistics indicate that there are over five lakh pending cases before national, state, and district forums and there are forums without presiding officers or employees. Other than this, government reports such as the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) have also identified systemic gaps in infrastructure, e-governance, and judicial training in most consumer courts. Other than this, public interest litigations and bar association petitions have always identified that tardy justice amounts to a breach of the right to access to justice, which is a constitutional element under Article 21. These facts and evidence of law offer strong basis for the intervention of the Supreme Court — and a call for policy reform in India’s consumer justice system.
Abstract
Consumer protection has been emerging as a progressively more vital area of governance in India with evolving markets and e-consumerism. Even subsequent to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the justice delivery system is gravely afflicted in its functioning. Vacancies in consumer fora, insufficiency of correct infrastructure, delayed appointment, and the shortage of permanent judicial staff are some of these afflictions. Thus, consumers get deprived of proper or timely remedy. In a very welcome change of fortunes, the Supreme Court of India has lately taken suo motu cognizance of such systemic weaknesses and sent out important guidelines to the Union Government. The Court suggested permanent consumer courts, full-time presiding officers, and institutional autonomy through objective selection procedures and fixed tenures. These judicial findings are an important step towards restoring consumer redressal forums to their earlier credibility and effectiveness. The article talks about the constitutional, institutional, and legal aspects of Indian consumer justice. It critically evaluates the role of the Supreme Court, legislative process, and connected case laws and offers a holistic approach towards guarantees of consumer rights not only being enshrined on paper but efficiently enforced on the ground.
Case Laws
1. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors, (1995)
The term “service” under the Consumer Protection Act was widened in this case to include medical services. Professionals like doctors were encouraged by the Supreme Court judgment to fall under the umbrella of the Act when they offer services for a consideration. This extended consumer rights further and made the Act’s provision more applicable in industries.
2. State of U.P. v. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association, (2017)
Supreme Court, in the current case, emphasized the necessity of strong consumer forums. It was alarmed by vacancies, infrastructural deficit, and tardiness in time in appointment of members to state and district forums. The Court addressed prompt appointments and held that seeking consumer justice is a part of the right to life under Article 21.
3. Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2023 (Supreme Court Guidelines on Consumer Fora Reforms)
In this regard, suo motu cognizance was taken by the Supreme Court of in the discharge of consumer dispute redressal commissions. Orders were given which invited thought to the institution of permanent consumer courts, judicially trained presiding officers’ appointment, and minimum tenures imposition. These observations were the basis on which continuing reform initiatives were premised.
4. Common Cause v. Union of India, (1996)
While not strictly a consumer case, this ruling placed focus on efficient and unbiased tribunals. Rules established are enforceable by quasi-judicial forums such as consumer commissions, which only enhances the constitutional imperative of access to justice. These conclusions aggregate to form the judicial basis for the current push by the judiciary to reorganize India’s consumer justice system. They reinforce the constitutional and legislative imperative of delivering fair, effective, and speedy relief to consumers.
Conclusion
India’s consumer protection regime, though legally strong on paper, continues to struggle with systemic clogs in practice. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 brought in progressive provisions to rationalise redressal of grievances, but operational inefficiencies like vacant positions, delayed appointments, and absence of infrastructure diluted its intended effect. The recent intervention by the Supreme Court has placed the necessity for institutional reform under the spotlight. By suggesting permanent consumer courts, judiciary directed selection processes, and determinate tenures, the Court has sought to put back people’s faith in an institution that is supposed to serve the typical consumer speedily and impartially. For the reform to be sustained, the executive and the legislature must play active roles in putting these directions into action. The digital integration, capacity development of the members of the forums, and transparency in appointments are priorities that must be followed. The goal is not only to enable proper working of the consumer forums, but also to make them credible, accessible, and constitutionally compliant. Ultimately, an improved consumer justice system will serve not only to defend consumers’ rights but also to uphold public trust in democratic institutions and the rule of law — a very crucial column of good governance for any contemporary state.
FAQS
1. What is “consumer justice architecture”?
A consumer justice architecture refers to the institutional and legal framework that envisions the protection of consumer rights and the resolution of consumer grievances. It involves consumer commissions at various levels, legislation like the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and grievance redressal institutions.
2. Why did the Supreme Court interfere in regulating the functioning of consumer forums?
The Supreme Court suo motu cognizance with regard to persistent problems such as consumer forum vacancies, delay in appointment, lack of infrastructure, and rising case pendency. It had directed with a view to systemic reform for efficient and timely administration of justice to consumers.
3. What are the reforms suggested by the Court?
The Court has suggested the following reforms:
Setting up permanent consumer courts
Appointment of full-time judicial officers
Ensuring members for a minimum of 5-year tenure
Recomposing benches with majority of judicial members
4. Would consumer courts be judicial courts?
Consumer courts are quasi-judicial courts. They are not courts of the ordinary judiciary but equally authoritative as civil courts, e.g., passing orders which can be executed, questioning evidence, and subpoenaing witnesses.
5. How does it impact the ordinary consumer?
An efficient and environmentally friendly consumer justice system leads to faster redressal of grievances, reduced cost of justice, and increased accountability of service providers. It empowers consumers more because the system becomes more responsible and answerable.
6. Are there any time limits for these changes?
The Supreme Court requested the Union Government to act immediately but has not issued any public statement of time frame. The reforms would likely be monitored very closely at future hearings
