SC allows states with under 1,000 consumer cases to rationalise district forums, subject to HC nod
The Supreme Court has said that states with fewer than 1,000 pending consumer disputes may abolish some district consumer forums and transfer those cases to regular courts after obtaining prior approval from the jurisdictional High Courts.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued the direction in an order passed on July 22 while continuing its monitoring of the functioning of consumer commissions across the country, including appointments, service conditions and infrastructure.
"All those states where the total pendency is less than 1,000 cases shall be at liberty to abolish some of the district forums and entrust the cases to the serving judicial officers, with the prior concurrence of the jurisdictional High Court(s)," the bench said.
The clarification came during the court's ongoing exercise to ensure compliance with its earlier directions regarding the constitution of state and district consumer commissions and the service conditions of their chairpersons and members.
In its February 11 order, the apex court had noted submissions from several smaller states, particularly the Northeastern states and Union Territories, that maintaining separate consumer commissions despite very low pendency was financially unviable.
It referred to states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur and Goa, along with the Union Territories of Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, where only a limited number of consumer disputes were pending.
The bench had also observed that some states did not have duly constituted state consumer commissions headed by a sitting or former High Court judge.
To ensure consumers continued to have access to an effective dispute resolution mechanism, the court had directed that pending matters from certain states be transferred to the Registrars General of the jurisdictional High Courts.
Under the arrangement, a single judge of the High Court, sitting with the existing technical members, would hear those cases as a deemed State Consumer Commission.
The February order had also permitted states and Union Territories with fewer than 1,000 pending complaints and appeals to submit alternative proposals to ensure effective consumer dispute resolution.
The bench has now clarified that states falling below the 1,000-case threshold may also rationalise their district consumer forums by transferring pending cases to serving judicial officers, subject to the prior concurrence of the concerned High Courts.
The Supreme Court also directed all states to comply with its February directions and inform the bench about the arrangements made for the functioning of their respective consumer commissions.
