The Supreme Court on Wednesday underscored the urgent need for establishing a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes across the country and directed the Union government to submit an affidavit within three months on its feasibility.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh observed that the tenure-based appointments for presidents, members, and staff of consumer forums dilute the quality and efficiency of justice delivery, and stressed the importance of a stable, permanent structure to uphold the constitutional essence of consumer protection.
“The Union of India is directed to file an affidavit on the feasibility of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of a consumer tribunal or a consumer court, within three months from today,” the bench ordered.
The Court also suggested that the Centre consider appointing sitting judges to head these forums and ensuring that the strength of the consumer redressal system is increased substantially to meet the growing volume of cases and expectations.
“Permanent Tenure Ensures Quality Justice”
In a significant observation, the bench emphasized that security of tenure enhances motivation and accountability among officials. It remarked that impermanence could lead to reduced efficiency and diminished quality of decisions, thereby hurting consumer interests.
“Any person appointed to an office with a fixed tenure would not be as motivated as one appointed on a permanent basis,” the court noted. “A qualitative and timely decision is the best advertisement for the concept of consumerism.”
The judgment pointed out that revamping the existing structure with holistic reforms is crucial and encouraged the Centre to take a fresh look at the consumer redressal mechanism in light of its constitutional importance.
Consideration for Article 227-Type Oversight
The Court further highlighted the absence of a clear oversight mechanism, akin to Article 227 of the Constitution, which allows high courts to supervise subordinate courts. It urged the Centre to deliberate on strengthening accountability and appellate mechanisms within the consumer justice system.
Origin of the Case
The observations came in response to a plea that raised concerns about structural and procedural gaps in the implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which has since been replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
While leaving the matter to the Centre’s discretion, the Court conveyed that the time has come for a change in mindset regarding tenure-based appointments and called for a long-term vision that aligns with the needs of modern consumer justice.
