In a pivotal decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional validity of the pecuniary jurisdiction guidelines under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. The judgment addressed the monetary thresholds for filing consumer disputes in district, state, and national commissions, which are determined by the value paid for goods and services.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra rejected challenges to sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i), and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act. These sections dictate the monetary caps for claims in respective consumer forums, aligning them with the consideration paid rather than sought compensation. “These provisions are constitutional, well within the legislative competence of Parliament, and do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution,” the bench declared.
The case stemmed from multiple writ petitions arguing that the revised pecuniary limits forced petitioners to approach lower courts rather than the national commission as permitted under previous regulations. The bench noted, “The classifications based on monetary value of goods and services paid as consideration are valid and directly linked to the objectives intended by the statute.”
Further elaborating on the legislative powers, Justice Narasimha, who authored the verdict, emphasized Parliament’s authority under Entry 95 of List I and Entries 11-A and 46 of List III, supported by Article 246, to enact such measures. “Parliament holds the legislative competence to set jurisdictions and powers of courts, including the stipulation of different monetary values for jurisdictional purposes,” he explained.
Addressing concerns about potential discrimination, the court found that the classification was neither illegal nor unfair, serving a logical connection to the hierarchical judicial structure intended by the law. “The value of consideration closely correlates with potential compensation claims, making it a rational basis for jurisdictional distinction,” the verdict read.
The Supreme Court also dispelled notions that the statute limits judicial remedies. “Consumers still retain the right to claim relief or compensation; the statute merely organizes the appropriate forum based on the transaction value,” the bench clarified.
