Delhi High Court Issues Notice On PIL Challenging Consumer Protection Act Provisions Relating To 'Substantial Question Of Law'

The Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, has issued notice to the Union of India in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The plea challenges provisions which vest the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) with the power to adjudicate “substantial questions of law” through benches that may include technical and non-judicial members. The Bench directed the Union of India and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to file their reply within six weeks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 23, 2026.

The petition, filed by N. Priyamvada and others, challenges Sections 51(2), 51(3), and 51(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, along with Regulation 12 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020.

The petitioners contended that the impugned provisions impermissibly confer upon the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) the power to determine and adjudicate “substantial questions of law,” a function which, according to them, constitutionally belongs only to superior constitutional courts such as the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

According to the plea, Section 51(2) restricts second appeals before the National Commission only to cases involving substantial questions of law, while Sections 51(3) and 51(4) require the Commission to formulate and decide such questions. The petitioners argued that this appellate structure mirrors the jurisdiction exercised by High Courts under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but without corresponding judicial safeguards.

The petition further alleged that the statutory framework allows benches comprising technical or non-judicial members to decide substantial questions of law, despite the Supreme Court's decisions in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and related judgments holding that such adjudicatory powers should remain with constitutional courts. The plea stated that the absence of a further statutory appeal against such NCDRC orders aggravates the constitutional infirmity.

The petitioners also relied on instances where the National Commission dismissed second appeals on the ground that no substantial question of law arose, even when benches comprised non-judicial members. They argued that the impugned provisions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by creating an arbitrary adjudicatory framework lacking judicial independence and institutional safeguards.

Case Title: N. Priyamvada & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case No.: W.P.(C) 6488/2026

Advocate for the Petitioners: Mr. Ashim Sood, Mr. Ankur Singhal, Mr. Rhythm Buaria & Mr. Senu Nizar, Advocates.

Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. Rukmini Bobde, CGSC along with Mr. Vinayak Aren & Ms. Aishwarya Nigam, Advocates.

Click Here To Read/Download Order