(UPSC GS Paper II – Governance: Judiciary, Statutory bodies)
Context (Introduction)
Recent reportage on mounting delays in consumer courts, despite statutory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, exposes deep structural and capacity constraints, raising concerns about access to justice for ordinary consumers.

Scale and Evidence of the Problem
- High and Rising Pendency: As per data tabled by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs in Parliament, 5.43 lakh cases were pending before district, State and national consumer commissions as of January 30, 2024. In 2024, commissions received 1.73 lakh new cases but disposed of only 1.58 lakh, leading to a net addition of nearly 14,900 cases. The trend continued in 2025, with 78,031 fresh filings against 65,537 disposals till July.
- Statutory Timelines Routinely Breached: Section 38(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandates disposal within 3 months (no testing) and 5 months (with testing). Parliamentary answers and Law Commission observations indicate that a large proportion of cases exceed these limits, often stretching into multiple years.
- Human Cost of Delay: Empirical accounts from across States show elderly consumers, small entrepreneurs and rural litigants undertaking repeated long-distance travel to State and National Commissions, often without their matters being heard—transforming low-cost forums into endurance trials.
Structural and Administrative Causes
- Severe Vacancies in Consumer Commissions: As of August 19, 2025, official data shows 18 President posts and 62 Member posts vacant in State Commissions, and 218 Presidents and 518 Members vacant at the district level. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs has repeatedly flagged vacancies as the single largest contributor to pendency.
- Infrastructure and Capacity Constraints: CAG audits and departmental reviews have noted limited courtrooms, inadequate registry staff, and uneven implementation of digital case-management systems across States, restricting daily hearings and effective scheduling.
- Procedural Delays Despite Legal Bar: Although the Act discourages adjournments, non-service of notices, delayed affidavits, and repeated requests for additional evidence are routinely allowed. The Department of Consumer Affairs has acknowledged that procedural laxity accounts for a significant share of adjournments.
- Complexity of Modern Consumer Disputes: Insurance claims, medical negligence, financial services and e-commerce disputes require technical expertise. Studies by consumer rights groups highlight that absence of subject-matter specialists forces commissions to seek expert reports, prolonging adjudication.
- Appeal-Driven Backlog: The three-tier structure (District–State–National) allows easy escalation. NCDRC annual reports show a substantial proportion of cases are appeals rather than original complaints, compounding pendency at higher forums.
Governance and Economic Implications
- Erosion of Consumer Confidence: OECD and World Bank consumer policy studies underline that delayed redress weakens market discipline and incentivises unfair trade practices.
- Access to Justice Deficit: Delays disproportionately affect the elderly, informal workers and small entrepreneurs, undermining substantive equality and Article 21’s guarantee of timely justice.
- Impact on Ease of Doing Business: Effective consumer dispute resolution is a key component of contract enforcement and market trust. Chronic delays raise transaction costs and legal uncertainty.
Existing Measures and Their Limits
- E-Daakhil Portal and Virtual Hearings: While digital filing has expanded access, government reviews note uneven digital literacy, infrastructure gaps and hybrid hearing delays limiting impact.
- Legal Provisions Without Enforcement: Statutory timelines and adjournment restrictions exist, but lack of monitoring and accountability mechanisms weakens compliance.
Way Forward
- Time-Bound Filling of Vacancies: Adopt a statutory appointment calendar with central monitoring, as recommended by Parliamentary Committees.
- Capacity and Infrastructure Augmentation: Increase number of benches, registry staff and full-scale digital case-flow management systems, drawing from e-Courts Phase III experience.
- Specialisation and Expert Panels: Create domain-specific benches or accredited expert panels to fast-track technically complex disputes.
- Adjournment Accountability: Mandate written reasons and introduce cost penalties for unwarranted delays, strictly enforcing Section 38 of the Act.
- Appeal Rationalisation: Introduce leave-to-appeal or higher monetary thresholds to reduce frivolous escalation.
- Regional Benches of National Commission: Decentralise the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to reduce litigant travel costs and pendency.
Conclusion
Despite a progressive legal framework, consumer courts are constrained by vacancies, infrastructure deficits and procedural laxity. Data-driven reforms focused on capacity, accountability and specialisation are essential to restore the promise of speedy, affordable consumer justice.
Mains Question
- Despite statutory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, consumer courts in India suffer from chronic delays. Analyse the causes of pendency and suggest reforms to ensure speedy consumer justice.(250 words, 15 marks)
Source: The Hindu