Holding

State Governments must set up independent District Forums as required by Section 9, and the ad‑hoc arrangement of District Judges as Presidents is temporary and must be terminated based on prescribed workload thresholds and time‑frames.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the sluggish implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically the failure of many States and Union Territories to establish District Forums as mandated by Section 9. The petitioners, a registered society, sought directions under Article 32 to compel the governments to set up these forums, noting that the ad‑hoc arrangement of assigning sitting District Judges as Presidents was temporary and over‑burdened the judiciary. The Court held that the responsibility to constitute independent District Forums rests with the State Governments and cannot be perpetually delegated to a stop‑gap scheme. It prescribed that where a District Judge’s workload exceeds 150 consumer cases per month for six consecutive months, the High Court must notify the State to appoint an independent Forum within six months, after which the ad‑hoc arrangement may be terminated. In districts with lower workloads, the temporary arrangement may continue for one year, during which the State must either establish a Forum for each district or, with Central Government approval, club two or three districts together. The Court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to comply within the stipulated time‑frames and disposed of both writ petitions.

Issues considered

The extent of the State Government's duty under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to establish District Forums.
Whether the ad‑hoc arrangement of District Judges serving as Presidents of District Forums can be continued indefinitely.
The criteria and time‑limits appropriate for terminating the ad‑hoc arrangement.
The authority of High Courts to direct State Governments to set up independent District Forums based on workload.
The permissibility of clubbing two or three districts for a single District Forum with Central Government approval.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 9

Subjects

Consumer Protection ActSection 9District ForumImplementationStop‑gap arrangementWorkload thresholdState responsibilityHigh Court directionClubbing districts

Judgment

A COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY ·-.,.'
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JANUARY 7, 1993

B (A.M. AHMADI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.)

Consumer Protection Ac~ 1986:

Section 9-Setting up of District Fora-Non-implementation by some
c States/Union Territories-Stop-gap ammgement of District Judges functioning
as Presidents of District Fora-Termination of-Statutory requirement of
constituting District Forum for each district or for 2 or 1 districts clubbed
together-Directions to State Governments/Union TerritorieHssued.
,.._.
1be. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 envisaged a three-tier fora com-
D prising the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Com-
mission for redressal of grievances of consumers. 1be Petitioner-Society
preferred the present Writ Petitions complainilig that the implementation
of the provisions was sluggish since the machinery for redressing the
grievances of poor consumers at the base-level viz. the District Forum had
E not been set up In 1111 tbe districts except a few. -~
As a stop-gap arrangement, this Court on 17.1.90 directed that every
district should have a District Forum with the District Judge as its
President. This Court further directed the State Governments concerned
to appeint two more members In every District Forum. It also scrutinised
F the Information received from vairous States/Union Territories and con-
sidered the difficulties faced by them in the matter or setting up District y-

Forum In each district.

1berealler, disposing of the Writ Petitions by giving directions to
States/Union Territories, this Court
G
HELD : 1. Under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it
Is the responsibility or the State Government to set-up a District Forum r-
l
with the approval of Central Government. 1be State Government cannot
absolve Itself of this responsibility by virtually perpetuating the ad hoc
H arrangement. The High Courts have not withdrawn their personnel only
10
COMMON CAUSE v. U.0.1. 11

because they have respected this Court's request made to them. But there A
Is a limit beyond which an ad hoc stop-gap arrangement cannot last. In
the circumstances it is most appropriate to indicate to the State Govern·
ments that the ad hoc arrangement evolved by this Court will terminate
within a fixed time-frame. [17E,F)
B
2. It is directed that wherever a sitting Disbict Judge is functioning
as the President or a District F ornm, if the_ workload exceeds the minimum
monthly load or 150 cases consistently for a six month period, the High
Court will convey the same to the State Government/Union Territory
Administration which will within a period or six mm;ths from the date or
receipt or the communication appoint a regular independent Disbict C
• · Forum as envisaged by section 9 of the Act. After the expiry or the said six
months period, the High Court will be free to ·terminate the ad hoc
stop-gap arrangement or loaning the services or a sitting Disbict Judge
work as the President of the District Forum under intimation to the State
Government/Union Territory Administration and it will then be the D
responsibility of the latter to make provision for carrying out the purposes
or the Act. [18C·Dl

3. It is futher directed that in districts where the workload does not
exceed the minimum f1Xed by this Court's order dated August 5, 1991, the
ad hoc arrangement may continue for one year during which period the E
State Government/Union Territory Administration will take steps to con·
stitute an independent Disbict Forum for each district or if the Central
Government permits one such forum for 2 or 3 districts clubbed together.
After the expiry of the period of one year, the concerned High Courts will
be free to terminate the ad hoc stop-gap arrangment of loaning the F
services of sitting District Judges to work as President of the District
Forum in which case it will be the responsibility or the State Govern-
ment/Union Territory Administration to make provision for carrying out
the purposes of the Act. [18E,GI

4. A copy or this order. will be sent to the Chief Secretary or each
State Government/Union Territory Administration to take steps to meet
its statutOry obligations under the Act within the above time-frame with a
view to ensuring that the interest of the consumers is fully protected.
Needless to point out that more than sufficient time has been allowed to
the State Governments/Union Territories to fulfil their statutory obliga- F
IZ SUPREME COURT.REPORlS (199~ 1 s.c.R.
. . .
A tlon of setting up a District Forum in every district as envisai;ed by section
9 or th~ Act. aiid the concerned Government will now be alive to its · '""'("
nsponsibilityto do so within the time extended hereby. [18H, 19A,B)
. . . ·'
.CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
· (Civil) No. 1141of1988. ·
B
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of in&;a.)

WITH

Writ P~tition (Civil) No. 742 of 1990.
c
(Under Article 32 ofthe Constitution of India.)

AltafAhmad, Additional Solicitor General, R.N. Sachthey, Dr. N.M
Ghatate, P.S.,Poti, A.S. Nambiar,Rajeev Dhawan, (H.D. Shourie-in-per·
son), Aitlp S~chthey, Chava Badri Nath Babu, Rashmi Dhirwal, B.R. Jae!, · _...
D . Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Monika Mobil, Monika Lal, Sunil Dogra, J JI. Parekh,
N.K. Sahu, P.H. Parekh, Sunita Mukherjee, Ms. H. Wahl, V.K.S. Choud-
hary, (Adv. General), K.B. Mishra, Vishwajit Singh, Vikrant Yadav, N.
Singh, Ms. Sushrna, B.K. Prasad, A.S. Bhasme, K.R. Nambiar, J.R. Das, S.
Sinha and Das, V. Balaj~ P.N. Ramalingam, Ms. S. Vasudevan, P.K. ·
E Manohar, Ms. A. Subhashini, B. Parthasarathy, M. Veerappa, S.K. Ag- ·
nihotri, A.K. Panda, Pravir Choudhary, S.K. Nandy, Pramod Swarup, Ms.
Indu Malhotra, Ashok Mathur, D.N. Mukherjee, S.H. Wahl, Kailash
Vasudev, Mr. G.K. Gansal, Ms. Indra Makwana, K. Sw~ Gopal Singh,
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Manoj Swarup, S. Kumar, Ms. S. Jan~ R.S. Sur~
Aruneswar Gupta, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Gaopal Singh,
F Ms. Alpna Kirpal, Dushyant A. Dave and V. Krishnamurthy for the ap-
pearing parties.

The Judgement of the Court was delive7ed by

AHMADI, J. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act of 1986)
G received the assent of the President on December 24, 1986. This legislation
was enacted for the protection of the interests of the consumers and for
that purpose to pr~vide fdr the establishment of Consumer Councils and ·
other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and matters •
connected therewith. Section 1(3) thereof provided that it shall come into -
H force on such date. as the Central Government will provide by notification.
COMMON CAUSE v. U.0.1. [AHMADI, J.] 13

Since different dates could be appointed by different States and for dif- A
fetent provisions the provisions of the Act did not come into force on a
single date in the entire country. The provisions contained in Chapters I,
II & IV were brought into force by the Central Government w.e.f. April
15, 1987 and Chapter III from July 1, 1987. The Consumer Protection
Rules, 1987 made under Section 30(1) of the Act were also brought into B
force w.e.f. April 15, 1987. For the sake of brevity these two pieces of
legislations shall hereafter be referred to as 'ihe Act' and 'the. Rules',
respectively.

The object of the legislation, as the Preamble of the Act proclaims,
is 'for better protection of the interests of consumers'. During the last few C
years preceding the enactment there was in this country a marked aware-
ness among the consumers of goods tliat they were not getting their
money's worth and were being exploited by both traders and manufacturers
of consumer goods. The need for consumer redressal fora was, therefore,
increasingly felt. Understandably, therefore, legislation was introduced and D
enacted with considerable enthusiasm and fanfare as a path-breaking
benevolent legislation intended to protect the consumer from exploitation
by unscrupulous manufacturers and traders of consumer goods. A three-
tier fora comprising the District Forum, the State Commission and the
National Commission came to be envisaged under the Act for redressal of
grievances of consumers. The petitioner, common cause, a registered E
society, espousing the cause of members of the public, filed this petition
two years after the Act came into force complaining that the implementa-
tion of the provisions of the Act was sluggish, in that, the machinery for
redressing the grievances of the poor consumers at the base-leval i.e. the
Districts Forums, had not been set up in all the districts in the country F
except a few. This Writ Petition was, therefore, moved under Articl~ 32 of
the COnsitution for a direction lo the appropriate Government for urgent
implementation of the provision of the Act in this behalf. Similar grievances
are made in the second petition also.

Notices were issued to the Union, the State Governments and the G
Union Territories requiring them to file counters indicating the action
· .taken for setting up a District Forum in each district under the Act. After
the counters were filed by most of the States, except a few, this Court
passed an order on January 17, 1990 directing that every district shall have
a District Forum with the District Judge of the district as its President. This H
...
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R.

A was a stop-gap arrangement. A further direction was given that the con-
cerned Governments will appoint two more members to constitute the ........
District Forum in every district. The President of the National Commission
was requested to obtain first-hand information from every State/U .T. about
full compliance of the requirements of the statute. The High Courts were
B also requested to accord appropriate sanction/consent for the functioning
of District Judges as Presidents of the District Fora. Pursuant to the above
order the President of the National Commission visited the States of
Rajasthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh and filed his interim report dated April 19, 1990 pointing
out that in all these States the District Forum existed in only a few districts
c and the Majority of the districts remained unserviced. A second detailed
report covering the States of Gujarat, Goa, Assam, Punjab, Haryana,
Chandigarh (U.T.) and Delhi (U.T.) was submitted on October 15, 1990
depicting more or less the same situation. Directions were issued from time
-
to time for establishing a regular District Forum in every district to the
D States/U .Ts. by this Court but suffice it to say that the progress was rather
slow. Even in districts where regular District Forum existed there was no
-··
proper accommodation and the staff was inadequate. Directions in this
regard had also to be given from time to time. Even though specific
directions were given from time to time to each State/U.T. separately, the
E progress was both tardy and sluggish. No useful purpose will be served by
traversing the orders passed from time to time to exact obedience for
securing the implementation of the statutory requirements from the
defaulting State/U .T. Subsequently, by an order dated August 5, 1991 this
Court directed that only in those districts where the minimum monthly load
was less than 150 cases consistently for a period of six months, it would be
F open to the State/U.T. to continue the arrangement of a sitting District
Judges as the President of the District Forum with the concurrence of the
High Court concerned. In ether districts where the work-load exceeded ~
this minimum, the Court ordered setting up of a regular District Forum
for each such district. In order to ensure that the interest of the consumers
G was protected each District Judge was asked to devote atleast three
alternate days in a week. Despite this order the extent of compliance
reported as on December 20, 1991 was not as significant as we would have
expected. Further time elapsed but the progress was slow and even the
information in that behalf was delayed. Ultimately on March 23, 1992 we .,-
H passed an order to the following effect :

•
COMMON CAUSE v. U.0.1. [AHMADI, J.] 15

"We would like to mention that if despite this last opportunity A
given to the concerned authorities to furnish the information
as sought by our order of 20.12.91, the information is not
forthcoming, we would be constrained to pass appropriate
orders without waiting any further in the matter.." ·

B
The above facts bring out in brief the difficulties experienced by this
Court in securing the implementation of the requirements of a benevolent
statute meant to protect the consumers. One wonders why this indif-
ference!

We have scrutinised the information received from the various C
States/U.Ts. from time to time and the picture that emerges is that once
the District Judges were required to fill the 'gap, no doubt temporarily,
most of the State Governments have shown total lack of sense of urgency
for setting up regular district-wise fora as envisaged by the Act. Some of
the States like Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, etc., have made prac- D
tically no effort to carry out. the intendment of the Act. In Gujarat and
Himachal Pradesh there is a regular set up in a single district only while
the rest of the districts are manned by sitting District Judges. In Punjab all
the districts are serviced by sitting District Judges. In some other States
like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil
Nadu only a few districts have regular set-ups while the majority of districts E
are manned by sitting District Judges. From certain States the information
received is incomplete. To say the least the emerging scenario is far too
depressing betraying a total lack of willingness on the part of most of the
States to seriously implement one of the most benevolent legislations. It is
such indifference which renders a well meaning legislation intended to F
protect a large body of consumers from exploitation ineffective. Many such
benevolent legislations have met similar fate because of such indifference
or influence weilded by vested interests with powers that be. Notwithstand-
ing the increasing awareness arnongs\ thi; oonsumers and notwithstanding
the fact that ciinsUIDer protection mo\.ement is gaining ground in other
countries, it is diffiCult to comprehend why the State GoVernments have G
been indifferent and, if we may say so, uneoncemed about the need to
establish regular fora in all the districts with despatch to ensure early
dispos31 of consumer complaints. Considerable time, almost over five years,
have· now elapsed since the provisions of the Act were brought into force
and we should have expected the regular forum in position in every district H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 1 S.C.R.

A• by now. It is conceivable that the consumer protection movement is gaining
ground in other countries because of strong consumer bodies having suc-
ceeded in organising the consumer: such powerful bodies are far and few
in this country and they are unable to exert sufficiet>t pressure or; the
powers that be as compared to the pressure brought by vested interests
B because the consumers in this country are not organised as one would like
them to be. Whatever may be the reason which permits such indifference
on the part of the States, the fact remains that the States have shown no
sense of urgency in setting up the network for protection of the consumers
at the district level. Since the sitting District Judges are already burdened
with heavy dockets of their own, even the lure for extra payment has not
C worked to ensure early disposal of the consumer complaints as they just
do not have the time for it. Even this Court's anxiety to see that consumer
complaints do not pile up has not activated the State Governments into
speedy action eventhough they were made aware through their counsel that
most of the High Courts had reported that their District Judges would not
D be able to spare three days in a week to deal with consumer complaints as
their regular work was likely to suffer. Many High Courts have shown their
inability to spare their District Judges for this work, notwithstanding its
importance, as the pressure of regular work on the District Judges is great
and they are finding it difficult to cope with the same and even urgent
matters get postponed, thereby adversely affecting the litigants. The High
E Courts have understandably shown their unwillingness to continue with this
arrangement which they had initially consented to on the ground that it was
of a purely temporary and stop-gap nature. They now complain, and in our
opinion rightly, that considerable time has now elapsed since this arrange-
ment was worked out and they find it difficult to continue with it as it is
F causing prejudice to the interest of litigants for whom the District Court
are meant. At the same time we cannot be oblivious to the need to protect
the consumer from exploitation - that would be the ultimate effect if
redressal fora are not available or are suddenly withdrawn. The need for
setting up regular fora in all districts of every State cannot be over-em-
phasised.
G
Section 9 of the Act envisages the setting up of a three-tier redressal
mechanism, viz., (i) the District Forum (ii) the State Commission and (iii) ~

the National Commission. So far as the State Commission and National \

Commission are concerned they are in position and except for minor
H problems of staffing pattern, accommodation, etc, (which they can resolve
COMMON CAUSE v. U.0.1. [AHMADI, J.] 17

with the concerned Governments) there are not many serious issues A
demanding this Court's interference. It is to be hoped that such minor
irritants will be removed by the concerned Governments without loss of
time. However, the real problem is concerning the setting up of the fora
at the district level. Here the difficulty pointed out by the concerned
Governments is regarding the availability of accommodation. But then B
there is nothing on record to conclude that despite serious endeavours
made by the concerned Governments they have not been able to overcome
this difficulty in the last over five years. It is difficult to believe that a State
Government would not be able to arrange for accommodation in a span of
over five years if it was seriously minded to do so. The impression which
has surfaced is that once the ad hoc stop-gap arrangement was made by C

- this Court, the concerned Governments did not view the problem seriously.
On account of inaction on their part the ad hoc arrangement in continuing
and, as pointed out by certain High Courts, to the detriment of the other
of the other litigants Whose cases are pending in the District Courts since
long. What then is the way out? We have to weigh the interest of the D
conswners on the one .hand and the efficient functioning of the judiciary
to deliver the goods to the other litigants whose cases are pending since
long on the other and find a way out which will not prejudice either. In so
doing, we must keep in mind the fact that under Section 9 of the Act it is
the responsibility of the State Government to set-up a District Forum with
the approval of the Central Government. The State Government cannot E
absolve itself of this responsibility by virtually perpetuating the ad hoc
arrangement. The High Courts have not withdrawn their personnel only
because they have respected this Court's request made to them. But there
is ·a limit beyond which an ad hoc stop-gap arrangement cannot last. In the
circumstances it seems most appropriate to us to indicate to the State F
Governments that the ad hoc arrangement evolved by this Court will
terminate within a fixed time-frame.
\.
The High Court of Gujarat has made a suggestion that the State
Governments should be permitted to club 2/3 districts and constitute a
single forum where the work is not sufficient. This Court was of the view G
that if the workload exceeds 150 cases in six months immediately preceding
the cut-off date a case. for an independent District Forum was made out
but if the workload was less than that, the ad hoc arrangement of the
District Judge functioning as the President of a District Forum may con-
tinue for sometime. Here the suggestion of the High Court of Gujarat for H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R.

A clubbing 2/3 districts can be considered by the State in consultation with
the Central Government under Section 9 of the Act. Unfortunately, ac-
curate figures of the pendency of consumer cases have not been supplied
to this Court by all the States and on account of that handicap our order
has to be of a general nature.

B ln the result we give the following directions:

(1) Wherever a sitting District Judge is functioning as the
President of a District Forum, if the workload exc:t:eds the
minimum monthly loaci of 150 cases consistently for a six month
period, the High Court will convey the same to the State
c Government/U.T. administration which will within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of the communication
appoint a regular independent District Forum as envisaged by
section 9 of the Act. After the expiry of the said six months
period, the High Court will be free to terminate the ad hoc
D stop-gap arrangement of loaning the services of a sitting Dis-
trict Judge to work as the President of the District forum under
intimation to the State Government/U.T. administration and it
will then be the responsibility of the latter to make provision
for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
E (2) In districts where the workload does not exceed the mini-
mum fixed by this Court's order dated August 5, 1991, the ad
hoc arrangement may continue for one year from today during
which period the State Government/U.T. administration will
take steps to constitute an independent District Forum for each
F district or if the Central Government permits one such forum ,
for 2/3 districts clubbed together. After the expiry of the period ,\

of one year from today, the concerned High Courts will be free
to terminate the ad hoc stop-gap arrangement of loaning the
services of sitting District Judges to work as President of the sl
District Forum in which case it will be the responsibility of the
G
State Government/U.T. administration to make provision for
carrying out the purposes of the Act.
-~ ';~'
(3) A copy of this order will be sent to the Chief Secretary of
each State Government/U.T. administration to take steps to J~

H meet with its statutory obligations under the Act within the

1
!ii
COMMON CAUSE •· U.OJ. [AHMADI, I.) 19

above time-frame with a view to ensuring that the interest of A
the consumers is fully protected. Needless to point out that
more than sufficient time has been allowed to the State Govem-
ments/U.Ts. to fulfil their statutory obligation of setting up a
District Forum in every district as envisaged by section 9 of the
Act and the concerned Government will now be alive to its
responsibility to do so within the time extended hereby. The 8
concerned Registrar shall forward the copy in less than a weeb
time."
'_j

t TI!c Writ Petition No. 1141 of 1988 shall stand disposed of accord-
in0' with costs which we quantify at Rs. 5000 per State Governmcat/U.T. C
- The other Writ Petition No. 742 of 1990 shall. also stand similarly disposed
of with no order as to costs.
G.N. Petitions dMposed of.