New Delhi: The Consumer Protection Act was enacted in India in 1986 with a noble objective to empower citizens to safeguard their rights as a consumer. The law’s architect was drawn to provide a quick and simple grievance redressal mechanism to consumers and protect them from exploitative trade practices. Four decades later, empty state consumer commissions are struggling to meet the expectations the law raised amongst buyers.
A recent report submitted to the Supreme Court shows that 10 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions are functioning without a president.
The report, prepared by a panel of amici curiae, appointed by the court to assist it, presents a detailed insight into the vacant positions at the state consumer commissions, the number of cases pending before them and a co-relation between the vacancy and slow disposal of matters filed here.
The report shows that three of Maharashtra’s seven state commission benches have no president, one of them since 2015.
Goa and Jharkhand state bodies do not have a president from 2020, while in Jammu & Kashmir, the post is vacant from 2022.
Puducherry state body is without a president since 2023, Uttarakhand has not appointed anyone to this office since 2024 and the office in Gujarat has remained empty since 2025. Punjab has extended the tenure of the president. As per the report, 24 states responded to the amicus curiae’s enquiry on the non-appointment of the president to the state commission.
Under the law, state governments have to appoint the president to the state commissions, after consulting with the Chief Justice of the high court.
The report also highlights the acute shortage of members in various state commissions and its direct impact on the disposal of cases before them.
Nineteen state commissions have reported vacancies, with three states – Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh – having zero working strength in their commissions. While sanctioned strength in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh is four each, it is five in Tamil Nadu.
There is 85 per cent vacancy in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and 75 per cent in Bihar. In at least seven state bodies—Delhi, Goa, Kerala, Mizoram, Puducherry, Punjab and Sikkim—50 percent posts of members are lying vacant.
Predictably, the report shows a direct co-relation between vacancies and slow disposal of cases. The law stipulates a 90-day timeline for the state consumer commission to conclude the hearing of an appeal before it.
The data shows these commissions are nowhere close to complying with this condition. More than 34,000 cases are pending in Maharashtra; in Uttar Pradesh there are more than 15,000 cases pending a final disposal; a little over 9,000 cases in Karnataka are yet to be decided, while Haryana state commission is grappling with 8,700 cases.
The oldest case pending in Maharashtra is from 1994, in Kerala from 1995 and in UP from 2000. Commissions of eight states are still hearing cases filed between 2001and 2010, while seven states have cases filed up between 2011 and 2020. Only four are hearing cases filed between 2021and 2026.
Other administrative issues pointed in the report relate to the average time a state commission takes to hear a case and upload its orders. While it is anywhere between one to three weeks for the first category, it takes at least two weeks under the second one.
But there are some states where a substantial number of orders have not been
uploaded even after six months from the date of hearing. They are Karnataka—where 460 orders passed more than six months ago have not yet been uploaded—and Maharashtra where 574 orders remain pending to be uploaded at the Mumbai Bench and 231 orders at the Nashik Bench.
Even in Pune, orders have not been uploaded on the ground that no posts have been sanctioned for the requisite judicial officers and staff to do so.
According to people familiar with the report, a combination of factors has affected the appointments, which has severely impacted the decision process. “Post covid, there has been a steady increase in filing of complaints. But the vacancies have left these commissions ineffective,” said one of them.
Another said that one of the main reasons for not filling up the vacancies is that there are not many applications received in response to the advertisement issued to fill-up the posts. “Our feedback shows that eligible candidates do not find the pay and allowances enumerated for the posts attractive,” the person added.
The amended 2019 act did away with the earlier distinction between judicial and non-judicial members in the 1986 law. The modified eligibility conditions allowed anybody who had 20 years of experience in public and law to be appointed.
And the rules framed under it allowed states to finalise the salaries. This resulted in non-uniform rules for the service conditions of members. According to persons quoted above, most of the states do not even protect the last drawn salary of a retired bureaucrat or a judicial officer, dissuading such potential candidates from applying for the job.
The third issue identified is the manner of selection of the members and president.
“The issue regarding the appointment process is pending before the Supreme Court in separate proceedings. Since there is lack of clarity in it, the states appear reluctant to proceed, even though there is no order to restrain them from going ahead with the same,” the second person quoted above said.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also read: Case files in sink, no AC or water supply — Delhi’s consumer forums crumble with massive pendency