Consumer forums can’t be sinecures for retired judges: SC

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has taken exception to district and state consumer forums fast becoming sinecures for retired district and HC judges and admitted that the apex court had passed sweeping orders in the past for activating these forums without realising the pendency of cases in these institutions.

A district consumer forum is headed by a retired district judge, and a state consumer disputes redressal commission (SCDRC) is headed by a retired HC judge. Most northeastern states and Union territories have complained that there is little work for the commissions and setting them up in full strength will be a drain on the exchequer.




Arunachal Pradesh informed a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Feb 11 that it has a total of 59 consumer cases pending in district and state consumer forums. It said that it has advertised for post of president of the state consumer forum, but no retired judge is interested in taking up the assignment.

A similar story emerged from other northeastern states and UTs. Sikkim has a total pendency of 64 consumer cases — 52 in district forums and 12 in state forum; Mizoram has 82 cases in district forums and 12 in state forum; Manipur has 123 cases in district forums and 43 in state forum; Lakshadweep has a total of 10 cases; Andaman and Nicobar islands has 37 cases in district forum and four in state forum; and Goa has a total pendency of 39 consumer cases.

The bench agreed that creating separate district and state forums in states where pendency of consumer cases is low casts an unnecessary burden on the exchequer and the assignment becomes a sinecure for retired judicial officers and retired HC judges.

Reflecting on past orders on the issue by SC, the CJI-led bench said, “We are also fond of issuing sweeping directions without realising the ground realities. The presidents of district consumer forums are on a par with district judges but look at the workload of the two. The district judges are overburdened whereas the consumer forums in these states have no work. Why should the president of a district forum be equated with a district judge?”

Seeking data from all states on pendency of cases before district forums, the bench decided to deal with the state commissions in seven states/UTs where pendency is low and transferred the pending cases to the HCs concerned.

It said the HC chief justice would assign consumer forum work to one of the judges, who would act as president of the forum and hear the cases along with members of the state forum. Those aggrieved by their orders could file an appeal before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the bench said. “States and UTs where pendency of consumer cases are less than 1,000 can submit an alternative proposal for the purpose of providing a mechanism to redress grievances of consumer complaints,” the bench said as some states wanted to appoint part-time members to district consumer forums.