Holding

The Court held that the Union Government must frame and submit model rules and regulations within the stipulated time‑frame to address infrastructure, staffing and administrative deficiencies in the consumer dispute redressal system.

Summary

The Supreme Court, hearing a civil appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association, examined the chronic shortage of infrastructure and vacancies in the consumer dispute redressal system. It noted that a three‑member Committee had been constituted to study infrastructure, staffing, bench requirements, eligibility criteria, and administrative powers of the National, State and District consumer commissions. The Court directed the Union Government to frame model rules within four months to ensure uniformity in rule‑making under sections 10(3) and 16(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and to prescribe objective norms for appointments, service conditions and salaries of members. It also ordered the National Commission to formulate regulations under section 30A to effectuate administrative control over State Commissions and District Fora. A status report on compliance with these directions was to be filed within six weeks, and the Committee’s work was declared concluded. The proceedings were adjourned to 30 January 2018 for further consideration of implementation.

Issues considered

The extent of infrastructure deficiency and vacancies in consumer fora at national, state and district levels.
Whether the Union Government should be directed to frame model rules for uniform rule‑making under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The need for objective norms for appointment, service conditions and remuneration of members of consumer commissions.
The scope of administrative powers of presidents of State Commissions and District Fora.
The procedure for reporting compliance with the Court’s directions.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 10(1)(b), s. 10(3), s. 16(1)(b), s. 16(2), s. 20(1)(b), s. 24(1)(i)(iii), s. 248(1)(iii), s. 24(8)(2), s. 248(2), s. 30, s. 30A

Subjects

Consumer Protection ActInfrastructure of consumer foraModel rulesAppointment of membersAdministrative controlVacanciesSupreme Court directions

Judgment

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 492

A STATE OF U P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.
v.
ALL U. P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION
(Civil Appeal No. 2740 of2007)
B DECEMBER 15, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, .J.J.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - ss. IO( l)(b), IO(J), 16(l)(b),
16(2), 20(1 )(b), 248(1 )(iii), 248(2), JO and JOA - Consumer fora -
c Paucity of infrastructure - Supreme Court had on 14-01-2016
constituted a three member committee to examine the following
aspects in the National Commission, State Commissions and the
District Fora: ( 1) the infrastructure requirements; (2) the vacancy
position of President/Members/ Presiding officers; (J) Need for
D additional benches, having regard to the workload and difficulties/
inconvenience which consumer dispute litigant has to face; (4) ·
conditions of eligibility, if prescribed, for appointment as non-
judicial members; (5) The nature and extent of Administrative·
Powers, if any, conferred upon the Presidents of the State
Commissions and the President of the District Fora; (6) The service
E
conditions currently applicable including pay-scales admissible to
President and Members, Judicial/Non-judicial; (7) The minimum staff
required; (8) Desirability and feasibility of creating separate cadre
for staff; (9) Any other aspect that the Committee may consider
relevant to make the Consumer Disputes Fora/Commissions more
F effective, efficient ~md their process speedy - Thereafter, Court
issued directions on 2 l-ll-16 to the Union Gol'ernment to frame
model rules (i) for ensuring uniformity in the exercise of the rule
making power uls.lO(J) and s.16(2) of the Act, for adoption by the
State governments; (ii) for prescribing objective norms for
implementing the provisions of s.10(1 )(b), s.16(1 )(b) and s.20(1 )(b)
G
in regard to appointment of the members; and (iii) for payment of
salary, allowances and for the conditions of service of the members
- It was further directed that upon approval of model rules by the
Court, the State government shall proceed to adopt the model rules
by framing appropriate rules u/s.30 of the Act - NCDRC requested
H to formulate regulations uls. JOA with the previous approval of the
492
STATE OF U P THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. v. 493
ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION

Central Government in order to effectuate the power of A
administrative control vested in the National Commission over the
State Commissions u/s. 24(B)( /)(iii) and in respect of administrative
control of the State Commissions over the District fora in terms of
s.24(8)(2) to effecti1 ely implement the objects and purposes of the
1

Act - Directions now issued to the Union government to file a B
comprehensive status report indicating the compliance with the
directions issued on 21-11-16 by the Court - Meanwhile, three
member Committee appointed by the Court filed its report, hence,
completed its task - The Committee stands closed - ASG to assist
the Court in formulating appropriate directions to ensure that proper
infrastructure is made available at all levels of the consumer fora C
across the country - Proceedings adjourned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2740
of2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.1998 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 968of1997 D
WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) No.164 of2002.
Ankur Prakash, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ranjan Mukherjee,
V. N. Raghupathy, Advs for the Appellants. E
Maninder Singh, ASG, Edward Belho, AAG, R. Balasubramanian,
Shekhar Vyas, Santosh Kr. Vishwakarma, Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Aarti
Sharma, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Harish Kr. Ikhinchi, Ms. Gargi Khanna,
S. Wasim A. Qadri, Raj Bhadur, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. C. K.
Sucharita, S. Srinivasan, Mis. Corporate Law Group, Anil Shrivastav, F
Gopal Singh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh,
Ms. Mamta Singh, Ms. Shodhika Sharma, T.N. Rama Rao, Hitesh Kumar
Sharma, T. Veera Reddy, T. V. George, G. Prakash, V. N. Raghupathy,
B. S. Banthia, Ranjan Mukherjee, R. Sathish, Ms. Sumita Hazarika,
R. Gopalakrishnan, Radha Shyam Jena, Kuldip Singh, Sun ii Kumar Jain,
G
Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham,
Ms. Simran Jeet, Mis. Arputham Aruna And Co,. Tara Chandra Sharma,
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. A. Subhashini,
Kamini Jaiswal, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu
Ramasubramanian, S. Manuraj, Mis. V. Maheshwari & Co., B. Balaji,
H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A Tushar Bakshi, Ms. K. Enatoli Serna, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang
Michael, Ms. Hoineithiam, Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Ashok K. Srivastava,
Ashok Mathur, Rajeev Sharma, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Mrs. Revathy
Raghavan, Krishnanand Pandeya, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Ms. Kaveeta
Wadia, T. Mahipal, Milind Kumar, T. V. Ratnam, B. Vinodh Kanna, A.
Sriram, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ankur Nagar, Nishe Rajen Shonker,
B
Anu K. Joy, Reegan S. Bel, Bhupesh Narula, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs.
G. Indira, Shuvodeep Roy, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Shreyas Jain,
Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Rajesh Srivastava, Advs for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

c ORDER
!. By an order dated 14 January 2016, this Court while dealing
with the paucity of infrastructure in the consumer fora, constituted a
three Member Committee consisting of:
!. Dr Justice ArijitPasayat,
D Former Judge, Supreme Court of India.

2. Ms Justice Rekha Sharma,
Former Judge, High Court of Delhi.

3. The Secretary to Government of India,
E
Department of Consumer Affairs
or his nominee.
2. The Committee was requested to examine the following
aspects :

F (1) The infrastructural requirements of the respective State
Commissions in terms of office space for the Presiding Officer,
members and supporting staff and whether the same has been
provided for. In case the requirement is not satisfied, what is the
extent of deficiency and possible ways and means of removing
the same.
G
(2) The vacancy position of President/Members/Presiding Officers
in the National Commission, State Commissions and the District
Fora and the steps that need to be taken for ensuring that vacancies
are filled-up on a timely basis.

H
STATE OF U P THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. v. 495
ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION

(3) Need for additional benches of the National Commission, State A
Commissions and the District Fora in the States or in any one of
them having regard to 11 the workload and the difficulties/
inconvenience which a consumer dispute litigant has to face to
access the National Commission, State Commissions and/or
District Fora.
B
(4) The conditions of eligibility, if any prescribed, for appointment
as non-judicial members of National Commission, State
Commissions and the District Fora. In case no such conditions of
eligibility are prescribed whether there is a need for doing so and
what could be the conditions of eligibility for such appointments
having regard to the nature of work and the relevant provisions of C
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(5) The nature and extent of Administrative Powers, if any,
conferred upon the Presidents of the State Commissions and the
President of the District Fora. In case no such powers have been
conferred whether the same need to be conferred and if so to D
what extent and ·effect.
(6) The service conditions currently applicable including pay-scales
admissible to President and Members, Judicial/Non-Judicial of the
National Commission, State 12 Commissions and the District Fora
and in case no service conditions are stipulated what could be E
reasonable conditions of service applicable to such appointees.
(7) The minimum staff required for the National Commission and
respeetive State Commissions/District Fora and in case no such
standard is recognized or the staff provided is inadequate having
regard to the nature and extent of work to be done by the F
concerned Commissions and Fora what could be the norms for
providing the same.
(8) Desirability and feasibility of creating a separate cadre for
staff in the National and State Commissions and the District Fora.
(9) Any other aspect that the Committee may consider relevant G
and helpful with a view to making the Consumer Disputes Fora/
Commissions more effective, efficient and their process speedy.
3. The Committee was requested to forward its deliberations to
the state governments, on the completion of their deliberations qua each
state to facilitate appropriate steps in a time bound manner.
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 12 S.C.R.

A 4: Thereafter, by an order dated 21 Novembe~ 2016, this Court
issued the following directions :
(i) The Union Government shall for the purpose of ensuring
uniformity in the exercise of the rule making power under
Section 10(3) and Section 16(2) of the Consumer Protection
B Act, 1986 frame model rules for adoption by the state
governments. The model rules shall be framed within four
months and shall be submitted to this Court for its approval;
(ii) The Unio.n Government shall also frame within four months
model rules prescribing objective norms for implementing
C the provisions 24 of Section 10(1 )(b ), Section 16(1 )(b) and
Section 20( 1)(b) in regard to the appointment of members
respectively of the District fora, State Commissions and
National Commission;
(iii) The Union Government shall while framing the model rules
-. .· D ·:have due regard to the formulation of objective norms for the
assessment of the ability, knowledge and experience required
to be possessed by the members of the respective fora in the
domain areas referred to in the statutory provisions mentioned
above. The model rules shall provide for the payment of
salary, allowances and for the conditions of service of the
E members of the consumer fora commensurate with the
nature of adjudicatory duties and the need to attract suitable
talent to the adjudicating bodies. These rules shall be finalized
upon due consultation with the President of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the period
F stipulated above;
(iv) Upon the approval of the model rules by this Court, the state
governments shall proceed to adopt the model rules by
framing appropriate rules in the exercise of the rule making
powers under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act,
19~; .
G
(v) The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is
requested to formulate regulations under Section 30A with
the previous approval of the Central Government within a
period of three months from today in order to effectuate the
H
STATE OF U P THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. v. 497
ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION

power of administrative ·control vested in the National A
Commission over the State Commissions under Section
24(B)(l )(iii) and in respect of the administrative control of the
State Commissions over the District fora in terms of Section
24(B)(2) as explained in this Judgment to 25 effectively
implement the objects and purposes of the Consumer
B
Protection Act, 1986.
5. On 7 March 2017, the following directions were issued :
"During the course of hearing today, the proposed rules and
regulations were brought to our notice. It also emerges during the
course of hearing, that there is a need for certain modifications, in c
the Rules and Regulations. Learned counsel for the rival parties
accordingly sought a short adjournment, so as to enable them to
iron out the issues, which require further debate and deliberation.
3 One of the pressing issues, which needs to be dealt with forthwith,
is the vacancy of the post of Registrar, of the National consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission. It seems, that there is an D
agreement on this issue as well, inasmuch as, learned Additional
Solicitor General leaves the issue of recommendation to the
Chairman of the above Commission, who will be at liberty to
suggest the name of an appropriate individual, for the post of
Registrar of the above Commission. As and an when such a E
recommendation is made, the selected individual will be appointed
as Registrar, without delay, by way of deputation, till such time a
regular incumbent is selected and appointed."
6. In pursuance of the previous orders, Mr. Maninder Singh,
learned Additional Solicitor General has filed a status report. We consider F
it appropriate to direct that a comprehensive status report indicating
compliance with the directions issued on 21 November 2016 by this
Court shall be filed on affidavit within a period of six weeks from today
by the Union government.
7. The Committee appointed by this Court has filed its report on 4 G
March 2017. The Committee has completed its task. The work of the
three memberCommittee appointed by this Court stands concluded with
its report dated 4 March 2017, a copy of which has been placed on the
record. The Committee stands closed.

H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A 8. We request Mr Maninder Singh, learned ASG to assist this
Court in formulating appropriate directions to ensure that proper
infrastructure is made ;1vailable at all levels of the consumer fora across
the country.We direct that the proceedings shall now stand over to
30 January 2018, to consider implementation of our decisions dated
21 November 2016.
B

Anliit Gyan Directions issued.