(Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.)
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil No. 2/2021
In Re: Inaction of the Governments in Appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Inadequate Infrastructure Across India … Petitioner(s);
v.
Union of India and Others and Others _______________ Respondent(s).
(Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Learned Senior Advocate Alongwith Mr. Aditya Narain, Learned Advocate is Amicus in Instant Matter.)
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil No. 2/2021, decided on August 11, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The empowerment of the consumers has been a continuing process with the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and its current legislative version in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. That is the Legislative intent. However, the ground reality is quite different as there is little endeavour to translate this Legislative intent into an administrative infrastructure with requisite facilities, members and staff to facilitate the decision on the consumer complaints. Statistics can be deceptive but sometimes statistics reveal the truth. The position prevalent in the State Consumer Forums and the District Consumer Forums is best reflected by the statistics of existing vacancies, insofar as the Chairman and the members are concerned. A Chart has been prepared by the learned Amicus Curiae reflecting the position as under:
“II. Status of vacancies in State Commissions
| S. No. | Name of State/UT | Date on which response filed | President: Whether post occupied | Member: Total posts notified as per S.42(3)(b) | Member vacancies: Current+ potential (next 6 months) |
| 1. | A&N Islands | 09.04.2021
05.08.2021 | Yes$ | NA (4 existing) $ | 4$ |
| 2 | Andhra Pradesh | 09.04.2021
28.07.2021 | Yes | 4 | 3+1 |
| 3. | Assam | 09.04.2021 | Yes | Not done (2 existing) | 2 |
| 4. | Bihar | 09.04.2021 | Yes | NA | 4 |
| 5. | Chandigarh | 11.04.2021 | Yes | 4 | 2# |
| 6. | Dadra & Nagar Haveli | 09.03.2021 | No | 4 (2 existing) | 4 |
| 7. | Delhi | 05.05.2021
10.08.2021 | Yes | NA (4 existing) | 3 |
| 8. | Goa | 29.04.2021 | Yes | 4 | 3 |
| 9. | Gujarat | 09.04.2021 | Yes | 8 | 2+1 |
| 10. | Haryana | 30.03.2021 | Yes | 4 | 1 |
| 11. | Himachal Pradesh | 09.04.2021 26.04.2021 | No | NA (2 existing) | 0 |
| 12. | Jharkhand | 03.05.2021
05.08.2021 | No | 4 | 2+2 |
| 13. | Lakshadweep | 31.03.2021
04.05.2021 | Yes | 2 | 2 |
| 14. | Madhya Pradesh | 22.03.2021
05.07.2021 | Yes | Not done | 3 |
| 15. | Maharashtra | 23.04.2021 | No | 11 | 6+1 |
| 16. | Manipur | 09.04.2021 | No | NA (2 existing) | 0+1 |
| 17. | Meghalaya | 09.04.2021 | No | 4 | 4 |
| 18. | Mizoram | 09.04.2021
13.07.2021 | Yes | Not done (2 existing) | 1 |
| 19. | Nagaland | 09.04.2021 | No | 2 | 0 |
| 20. | Odisha | 09.04.2021
04.08.2021 | Yes | 4 | 4 |
| 21. | Puducherry | 06.07.2021 | Yes | Not done (2 existing) | 2+2# |
| 22. | Punjab | 09.04.2021
28.06.2021 | No (fell vacant in July 2021) | 4 | 2 |
| 23. | Rajasthan | 27.04.2021 | Yes | 10 | 3 |
| 24. | Sikkim | 09.04.2021
09.08.2021 | Yes* | Not done (2 existing + 2 proposed) | 1+2# |
| 25. | Tamil Nadu | 22.07.2021 | Yes | NA (2 existing) | NA |
| 26. | Telangana | 03.04.2021 | Yes | NA (2 existing) | 1 |
| 27. | Tripura | 09.04.2021 | Yes* | 4 | 0 |
| 28. | Uttar Pradesh | 01.03.2021
25.06.2021 | Yes | 4 | 0+1 |
| 29. | Uttarakhand | 04.05.2021 | Yes | 4 | 3 |
| 30. | West Bengal | 04.05.2021 | Yes | Not done (10 existing) | 2 |
II. Status of vacancies in District Commissions
| S. No. | Name of State/UT | Date on which response filed | No. of Districts | No. of District Commissions | President vacancies: No. of current + potential (next 6 months | Member posts: Total posts notified as per S.28(2)(b) | Member vacancies: No. of current + potential (next 6 months) |
| 1 | Andhra Pradesh | 09.04.2021
28.07.2021 | 13 | 17 | 12+1 | 34 | 34 |
| 2 | Arunachal Pradesh | 02.06.2021 | 25 | 18+7 (to be set up) | 0 | 54 | 18 |
| 3 | Assam | 09.04.2021 | 33 | 23 | 3 | 2 | 14 |
| 4 | Bihar | 09.04.2021 | 38 | 38 | 23 | NA | 56 |
| 5 | Chhattisgarh | 26.04.2021 | 28 | 27 | 1+1 | 54 | 27 |
| 6 | Dadra & Nagar Haveli | 09.03.2021 | 3 | 3 | 2 | NA (6 existing) | 6 |
| 7 | Delhi | 05.05.2021
10.08.2021 | 11 | 10 | 7 | NA (20 existing) | 11 |
| 8 | Gujarat | 09.04.2021 | 33 | 26 | 10+3 | 52 | 22 |
| 9 | Haryana | 30.03.2021 | 22 | 22 | 9+3 | 44 | 18+4 |
| 10 | Himachal Pradesh | 09.04.2021
26.04.2021 | 12 | Whole time:4 Clubbed:8 | 20 (no post) | NA (8 existing) NA (16 existing) | 23 |
| 11 | Jharkhand | 03.05.2021
05.08.2021 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 48 | 45+3 |
| 12 | Karnataka | 30.04.2021 | 31 | 33 (incl 4 additional) | 19 | 66 | 34 |
| 13 | Kerala | 31.05.2021 | 14 | 14 | 5 | 28 | 1+2 |
| 14 | Lakshadweep | 31.03.2021
04.05.2021 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 15 | Madhya Pradesh | 22.03.2021
05.07.2021 | 52 | 51 (incl 3 additional) | 7+4 | 102 | 57+9 |
| 16 | Maharashtra | 23.04.2021 | 36 | 40 | 11+2 | 80 | 12+1 |
| 17 | Manipur | 09.04.2021 | 16 | 3 | 3 | NA (6 existing) | 0 |
| 18 | Meghalaya | 09.04.2021 | 11 | 11 | 4 | 22 | 22 |
| 19 | Mizoram | 09.04.2021
13.07.2021 | 11 | 8 | 1 | Not done (2 existing) | 2 |
| 20 | Nagaland | 09.04.2021 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 24 | 6+1 |
| 21 | Odisha | 09.04.2021
04.08.2021 | 30 | 31 | 25+1 | 62 | 23+19 |
| 22 | Puducherry | 06.07.2021 | 2 | 1+1# | 1+1 | 2 | 1+1 |
| 23 | Punjab | 09.04.2021
28.06.2021 | 22 | 20 | 9 | 40 | 30+5 |
| 24 | Rajasthan | 27.04.2021 | 33 | 37 | 10+3 | 74 | 12+1 |
| 25 | Sikkim | 09.04.2021
09.08.2021 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 8 | 1 |
| 26 | Tamil Nadu | 22.07.2021 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 27 | Telangana | 03.04.2021 | 31 | 12 | 1+1 | NA (24 existing) | 7+1 |
| 28 | Tripura | 09.04.2021 | 8 | 4 | 0 | NA (8 existing) | 2+1 |
| 29 | Uttar Pradesh | 01.03.2021
25.06.2021 | 75 | 79 | 9+13 | 158 | 44+40 |
| 30 | Uttarakhand | 04.05.2021 | 13 | 13 | 1+1 | 26 | 19+1 |
| 31 | West Bengal | 04.05.2021 | 23 | 28 | 7 | Not done (50 existing) | 3+2 |
2. We have endeavoured to hear different States and have emphasized that the States should give their inputs in time so that a picture up to date is presented before us by the learned Amicus Curiae and last minute filing of the affidavits by the States is not acceptable.
3. On hearing learned Amicus Curiae, we consider it appropriate to issue the following directions to all the States qua the issue of appointment of Chairman and Members of the State and District Commissions:
1) Some of the States have not notified the rules under Section 44 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. List of these are as under:
“VIII. List of States/UTs that have not yet framed Rules under S.44 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for salaries, allowances and other terms & conditions of service of the President and Members of the State Commission
1. Chandigarh
2. Dadra & Nagar Haveli
3. Gujarat
4. Haryana
5. Himachal Pradesh
6. Lakshadweep
7. Madhya Pradesh
8. Maharashtra
9. Meghalaya
10. Mizoram
11. Nagaland
12. Puducherry
13. Punjab
14. Sikkim
15. Telangana
16. Tripura
17. Uttar Pradesh
18. West Bengal
Status not known for the following States/UTs:
1. A&N Islands
2. Bihar
3. Manipur
4. Rajasthan”
We direct all the States and Union Territories should notify the rules within two weeks from today.
2) In order to take care of the position, where still the States dilly dally on the issue of notifying the Rules, we further direct that in the eventuality of the rules under Section 44 of the said Act not being notified within two weeks, the model rules framed by the Government of India will automatically kick off and apply to the concerned States and Union Territories i.e. Consumer Protection and (Salary, allowances and Conditions of service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Model Rules, 2020.
3) In view of the large number of vacancies existing, we direct that all the existing and potential vacancies should be advertised, if not already advertised, within a period of two weeks. The position of these vacancies is as reflected in the chart prepared by the Amicus Curiae:
“X. List of States/UTs that have not yet advertised existing and potential vacancies in terms of Rule 6(6) of the 2020 Rules:
1. Bihar
2. Chandigarh
3. Dadra & Nagar Haveli
4. Goa
5. Gujarat
6. Haryana
7. Himachal Pradesh
8. Lakshadweep
9. Madhya Pradesh
10. Manipur
11. Mizoram
12. Nagaland
13. Odisha
14. Puducherry
15. Sikkim
16. Tamil Nadu
17. Uttarakhand
18. West Bengal
Status not known for the following States/UTs:
1. A&N Islands
2. Rajasthan
3. Telangana
4. Tripura
4) It appears that some of the States and Union Territories have not constituted the Selection Committees. Particulars of these are as under:
“IX. List of States/UTs that have not yet set up a Selection Committee in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (“2020 Rules”):
1. Assam
2. Chandigarh
3. Haryana
4. Himachal Pradesh
5. Lakshadweep
6. Madhya Pradesh
7. Manipur
8. Mizoram
9. Puducherry
10. Tamil Nadu
Status not known for the following States/UTs:
1. A&N Islands
2. Telangana
3. Tripura”
The States/Union Territories are directed to constitute the Selection Committees within four weeks from today.
5) All the vacancies whether for the post of President or Members should be finally filled up by the 30 States and Union Territories within a maximum period of eight weeks from today.
6) It appears that some of the States are seeking to give an excuse of the matter being held up of selection as the number of posts have not been prescribed/sanctioned in consultation with the Central Government as mandated under Section 42(3)(b) of the said Act. Section 42 deals with the establishment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and reads as under:
“Section 42 – Establishment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
(1) xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx
(3) Each State Commission shall consist of-
(a) xxx xxx
(b) not less than four or not more than such number of members as may be prescribed in consultation with the Central Government.”
A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the mandate is of each State Commission to consist of a President and not less than four members i.e. insofar as the President and four Members are concerned, it is the Legislative mandate. It is only if the number of Members have to be more than four, that such number of Members may be prescribed in consultation with the Central Government. If the State feels that the number of members have to be more than four, that process of discussion cannot derail the process of appointment of President and four members in any case.
7) Insofar as the infrastructure and man power requirements are concerned, it appears that as usual most of the affidavits have been filed at the last minute resulting in the inability of the Amicus Curiae in presenting the appropriate picture before us. We are unwilling to countenance such last minute rush of affidavits which derails the effective hearing before this Court when this Court is spending so much time on aspects which really Administration should be doing. We thus, direct that updated position on these aspects should be furnished to the Amicus within two weeks from today, if not already given, to facilitate the learned Amicus Curiae to assist us in this behalf also. We also take note of his submission in this behalf that for example the post of Registrar is stated to be not have been notified practically all over the State of Uttar Pradesh. Such aspects should never arise. The information qua infrastructure should inter alia include the aspect whether the premises are rented or owned by the Government. If rented, the location of the rented premises.
8) At this stage, learned Amicus Curiae points out that so far as this aspect of infrastructure and man power is concerned, it is appropriate that the response is in a particular format to facilitate preparation of chart in assisting the Court. The format for the same will be circulated by tomorrow in a Google Form. We once again emphasis that wherever the learned Amicus Curiae requires the response in a particular format, the States are bound to respond in that format.
We are informed that out of the six vacancies of the NCDRC which were still to be filled in as noticed in para 13 of our order dated 22.02.2021 and were stated to be still lying with the ACC from July, 2020 as on that date, four vacancies have been filed in leaving two vacancies. One other person has also demitted the office making it three vacancies now. We are of the view that there is no reason why the Central Government should take more time to fill up the vacancies and thus, the schedule aforesaid laid down for the State Governments to fill the vacancies shall equally apply to the Central Government.
4. We now turn to an aspect of a part of our order dated 22.02.2021, more specifically, paras 4 to 8. The subject matter for observations was the issue of a Legislative Impact Study and whether the same was undertaken before the new Act of 2019 came into place. This was in the context that the new Act expanded the jurisdiction of the consumer forums which would result in the litigation shifting to the Consumer Tribunals apart from the aspect of the variation in the pecuniary jurisdiction by increasing the jurisdiction of the District and State forums. The latter would also again result in cases being transferred to these forums. Unfortunately, none of this was done before the Act came into force.
5. The affidavit now filed on behalf of the Union of India affirmed on 05.05.2021, makes a reference to a post facto exercise after the Act has come into force and that too only in respect of the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction. Most of the States have responded to the same.
6. The Central Government is stated to be assisting the States by a Scheme titled as “Computerization and Computer Networking of Consumer Commissions” (CONFONET) which was started in 2004-2005 and has been continuing since then. This provides ICT infrastructure to Consumer Commissions and replaces old infrastructure, provides HR support by deployment of technical man power to enable/monitor computer based system in each and every Consumer Commission in India, provides an online module of case monitoring system, facilitate reporting and monitoring at all levels, strengthen transparency and accountability in judicial system etc. This Scheme is stated to be fully funded by the Central Government and is being implemented through the NIC. This being the position, learned Amicus Curiae rightly points out that in this response which has now been called for from the States to be furnished in two weeks, they would inform as to whether they have utilized this opportunity and the funding provided by the Central Government and in what manner.
7. We are thus, of the view that at least now a comprehensive Legislative Impact Study should be done post the legislation as what has been done by writing a letter post facto is only about the pecuniary jurisdiction. It does not deal with the aspects referred to in para 5 of our order dated 22.02.2021 but is confined only to para 6. The Study should be undertaken and placed before us within four weeks.
8. The task in this behalf of the Central Government is simpler as Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, learned Deputy Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand points out that in terms of a judgment of this Court, the past cases will remain in the existing foras and only the future cases will be filed in a consumer forum. If that be the position, an assessment can easily be made of how many more cases would arise in these foras henceforth to make necessary arrangements for infrastructure and man power.
9. In the end, learned Amicus Curiae points out that our first direction dated 22.02.2021 calling upon the States to furnish the information to the National Commission within two weeks’ time about position of vacancies of the same being uploaded on the website of the National Commission is only partly complied with because some of the States are stated not to have so communicated. The States will duly communicate within two weeks from today failing which they will be treated as in breach of our directions.
10. In order to ensure that all the aforesaid directions are complied with, we direct that the concerned Chief Secretaries of the States in case of non-compliance within the time frame stipulated by us aforesaid will attend the virtual Court proceedings and so would be the position for Union of India where the concerned Secretary would be the Secretary, Consumer Affairs.
11. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Amicus Curiae submits that somehow the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh have not responded. Needless to say, they are equally bound to respond to the learned Amicus Curiae and thus, Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General will ensure that the two Union Territories also respond in terms of aforesaid paragraphs.
12. List on 10.11.2021.
13. Liberty to the Amicus Curiae to mention and seek directions if the States are not following the schedule laid down by this Court.
———
