Supreme Court Allows High Courts To Hear Consumer Appeals In States Where State Commission Not Formed
Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Ensure Functioning Of Consumer Commissions In Smaller States, Seeks SG's Assistance
Invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court recently empowered High Court Judges to hear consumer appeals in States where State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Many States found it “not viable” to constitute full-fledged State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions owing to low pendency.
A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the suo motu case In Re: Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The Court noted that many small States have low pendency of appeals.
Illustratively, the Court recorded:
• Arunachal Pradesh: 59 cases pending in total.
• Sikkim: 52 complaints before the District Commission and 12 before the State Commission.
• Tripura: 316 complaints before four District Commissions and 46 before the State Commission, but no Chairperson in place.
• Mizoram: 82 complaints before the District Commission and 12 before the State Commission, with members functioning part-time.
• Manipur: 123 complaints before District Commissions and 43 before the State Commission.
• Lakshadweep: Fewer than 10 cases, with the President of the Kerala State Commission holding additional charge.
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands: 37 complaints before the District Commission and 4 before the State Commission.
• Goa: 39 matters pending before the State Commission, with no qualified President appointed.
The Court noted :
"It may be seen that in most of the above-mentioned States, either there is no President of the State Commission possessing the pre-requisite qualification of being a sitting or former Judge of the High Court, or the Commission itself has not been established for want of sufficient cases. At the same time, a few complaints at the District Commission or such complaints/appeals, which are maintainable before the State Commission, are also pending in these States/UTs."
Directions Under Article 142
Observing that consumer complaints and statutory appeals cannot be rendered “otiose” and that litigants cannot be left remediless, the Court issued the following directions:
1. The concerned State Governments and UT Administrations must transfer all pending complaints and appeals before their State Commissions to the Registrar General of the jurisdictional High Court within two weeks.
2. The Chief Justices of the concerned High Courts are requested to assign these matters to a Single Judge, who will be deemed to act as the Chairperson of the State Commission for adjudication. The existing Technical Members are to assist in completing the forum. The matters should preferably be decided within three months.
3. If an appeal is filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against such orders, the President of the National Commission is requested to assign the matter to his own Bench, considering that a sitting High Court Judge acted as the Chairperson.
Financial Burden Plea
Several States contended that the Court's earlier directions mandating full-time appointments had imposed an extreme financial burden on their exchequers and could adversely affect the structure of the Commissions. Interlocutory applications seeking modification of the May 19, 2025 directions have been filed.
The Court directed that all such applications be listed on February 26, 2026 along with the main matters.
Compliance With Rules, Alternative Proposals
The Bench clarified that all States and UTs must ensure that the composition of State and District Commissions strictly conforms to the applicable Rules, including the mandatory inclusion of a woman Member.
Further, States and UTs where pendency is below 1000 cases have been granted liberty to submit alternative proposals to ensure a smooth and effective consumer redressal mechanism.
The Court also sought the assistance of the Solicitor General of India and directed that the office of the Solicitor General be informed, along with a copy of the earlier order dated May 19, 2025, particularly in the context of the Model Rules framed by the Central Government under Section 102(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.