रोजमर्रा के जीवन में न्याय की कानूनी हकीकत – legal reality of justice in everyday life ntc rlch
When we think of justice, we immediately think of criminal trials, constitutional challenges, landmark judgments and cases involving personal liberty. Similar topics mainly dominate public discussions on law. Justice is often thought of as a process that occurs in and through the courts, involving serious crimes, state powers and high-profile legal battles, but in the meantime, ordinary people suffer much more silent and routine injustices. This happens when a family invests its entire life savings in buying a house, but does not get the house. When an insurance company rejects even a genuine claim. When a bank charges illegal fees. When a defective product does not perform as promised. Or when a service provider does not fulfill its responsibilities, such incidents usually do not make headlines. These incidents affect the daily lives of crores of people. On the basis of these incidents, people decide how much they can trust the market, institutions and the legal system that protects their rights.
The ‘Consumer Justice Report 2026’ published by ‘India Justice Report’ talks about taking these everyday violations seriously. It is a reminder that justice is not limited to criminal law or constitutional rights. It is also present in common transactions that are part of our daily lives. Therefore, to protect the collective interests of consumers, ‘Central Consumer Protection Authority’ (CCPA) was established on 24 July 2020. This regulatory agency can investigate unfair business activities and misleading advertisements. If found guilty, apart from imposing fine, it can also order recall of defective products. But the information received by ‘India Justice Report’ under the Right to Information Act shows that the authority has not fully utilized its powers.
In the 6 years of its formation, CCPA issued a total of 192 orders. (Photo- ITG)
In the 6 years of its formation, CCPA issued a total of 192 orders. That means an average of less than three orders per month. One reason for this could also be lack of human resources. The Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, holds the additional responsibility of the Chief Commissioner of CCPA. Apart from the Chief Commissioner, CCPA has one more Commissioner and only 18 sanctioned staff posts. If the authority makes proper use of its jurisdiction, consumers can get relief on a large scale and a positive message can be sent to the entire dispute redressal system.
The ‘Consumer Justice Report’ sheds light on the functioning of India’s consumer dispute redressal system. It also shows how institutional shortcomings are preventing consumers from getting timely and effective relief.
The report analyzes data related to the capacity and budget of institutions and 28.5 lakh consumer disputes registered between 2010 and 2024 from responses received under the Right to Information (RTI). On this basis, it attempts to present the most comprehensive assessment of the consumer justice system in India so far. The most important and worrying points of the report emerge from the study of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions (SCDRC) and District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions (DCDRC). The analysis of the commissions, especially in the capital cities, gives an important indication of the state of the consumer justice system as a whole.
At the national level, the position of consumer commissions is also similar to that of the judiciary. There is a continuous delay in disposal of cases here and the burden of pending cases is increasing. By the end of 2024, more than 5 lakh consumer cases were pending across the country. Instead of the pending cases decreasing, their number has continuously increased. There was an increase of about 21 percent between 2020 and 2024. Institutions whose objective was to provide justice to people quickly and at low cost are now unable to keep pace with the increasing demand.
Such a situation is all the more worrying because consumer courts were established as an alternative to the lengthy and expensive process of traditional litigation. The ‘Consumer Protection Act’ envisions a system that is accessible to all, effective and consumer friendly. According to the law, cases should be resolved within a few months, so that people do not have to go to courts for years for their basic rights. But the actual situation is quite different from this objective.
This report presents a worrying picture of India’s consumer justice institutions. These courts were established to provide simple and relatively fast resolution of disputes related to goods and services, but the entire system is now plagued with delays. An important finding of the report is that almost one out of every three cases pending in State Consumer Commissions is pending for more than three years. This raises the question whether these institutions are capable of providing timely justice to consumers.
The report also mentions the acute shortage of human resources in consumer justice institutions. By January 2025, about 40 percent of the sanctioned member posts in State Consumer Commissions were vacant. In many states, the posts of president and support staff were also found vacant. Many commissions continued to operate for long periods without full leadership and adequate staff. Apart from this, data related to workload, rate of disposal of cases and pending cases is also given in it. All these facts show that there is a persistent deficiency in the capacity of the institutions responsible for resolving consumer disputes.
District Consumer Commissions located in capital cities are a good medium to understand these challenges. State capitals are major centers of trade, housing, finance and services. Here the number of both consumer transactions and disputes remains high. Therefore, the functioning of these commissions shows the extent to which consumer justice institutions are capable of working under high pressure. However, the consumer justice structure in our country has also not been developed equally. At the time of our assessment, there were 775 districts in India, but only 685 District Consumer Commissions were functioning. This means that even today separate consumer forums are not available in many districts. This shows a major deficiency in the institutional system.
The study of commissions in capital cities showed wide variation on parameters such as vacant posts, number of employees, pending cases, budget and dispute resolution rate. On the one hand, the performance of the District Commissions of Delhi was the best. The average disposal rate of cases in many commissions here was up to 95 percent. In contrast, the number of cases pending for a long time was higher in Kolkata. In some commissions, more than one-third of the cases remained pending for more than three years. Differences were also seen in the availability of employees. In many commissions the posts of chairman, members or other employees were vacant. Differences in institutional capacity and workload management were also seen in Chennai and Bengaluru. Some commissions performed well in disposal of cases, while in many commissions the posts of members and administrative staff remained vacant for long periods. The performance of commissions in other capital cities, such as Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Vijayawada, Kamrup, Patna, Durg, North Goa, Gandhinagar and Gurugram was also not the same. Of these, only one-third of the commissions could achieve 100 percent or more case disposal rate. There was a severe shortage of staff in many commissions.
Women’s representation in these commissions was also quite limited. According to the rules of the year 2020, it is mandatory for every commission to have at least one woman as chairperson or member. Most commissions followed this minimum rule, but women’s participation could not go further than this. There were only two women presidents in the entire country. The share of women in the four state consumer commissions was less than one-third. This ratio was found to be lowest in Rajasthan.
The budget of 21 state commissions responding to RTI increased by 52 percent between 2021-22 and 2024-25. However, only 85 percent of the amount was spent in the year 2024-25. Some states cut their budgets despite rising cases and more vacancies. At the district level, budget data of 14 capital city commissions was available. These commissions received a total allocation of Rs 45 crore between the year 2021-22 to 2024-25 and out of this, about Rs 44 crore was spent. The gap in resources between the different commissions was quite large. Bhopal got the highest amount of Rs 7.3 crore in four years, while Vijayawada got only Rs 9.3 lakh in the same period. The pattern of their expenditure also remained different. These figures show that despite working under the same law, there is a huge difference in the resources available to consumer justice institutions.
The report’s findings broaden our understanding of access to justice. Consumer courts are often considered a special or limited part of the legal system. But common citizens knock the doors of these institutions the most for the losses they face in their daily lives. The functioning of consumer justice institutions is therefore an important basis for gauging how effective legal rights are in practice. Issues like vacant posts, lack of infrastructure, budget, availability of staff, pending cases and representation are not just administrative statistics. These determine how effectively institutions can accept, hear and resolve disputes. ‘Consumer Justice Report 2026’ brings these experiences into the center of discussion. It draws attention to the systems, resources and institutions on which access to justice for millions of the country’s citizens depends.
(The author is co-founder and head of India Justice Report. Views are personal)
—- End —-
