The twin pillars of consumer justice

 Rapid spread of the digital market has also helped markets of various products and services to grow substantially across India. Strengthening of Consumer Commissions at the state and district level has become critical to protecting their interest through quick redressal of their grievances. Yet, 50% of the sanctioned posts of presidents, 33% of members in state consumer commissions, and 31% of sanctioned posts of members’ positions in the district commissions hold out the mirror on poor implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Raising the level of consumer awareness will not have any significant improvement in consumer grievance redressal if legally mandated consumer protection institutions continue to grapple with such a glaring gap. The Act seeks to empower consumers through greater transparency, accountability, and accessibility to justice. It mandates speedy, cost-effective, and technology-driven redressal of consumer grievances with the help of real-time case tracking, virtual hearings, digital submissions, and paperless proceedings through integrated e-filing and e-record management systems. Easy access to the digital payment ecosystem, rapid spread of the internet and availability of internet data at low cost have driven faster spread of online markets to nooks and corners even in difficult geographical terrains of the northeast region. The evolution of quick commerce and faster growth in the gig economy, coupled with an increase in disposable income, have allowed the markets of various consumer goods to grow in both offline and online channels. Consumer Commissions functioning at full operative strength are pivotal to raising the awareness among consumers about their rights and entitlements so that they move the commissions with their grievance over any product and service deficiencies, delivery of defective goods or when companies fail to redress the complaints even after escalation to the highest level and continue to indulge in exploitative trade practices.  The onus of filling up the vacancies of president and members in the state commissions and district commissions lies with the state governments, while the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, stipulate that the process of appointments shall be initiated by the state government at least six months before the vacancy arises. The legal provisions are quite comprehensive, and ideally no position in the consumer commission, be it at the state or district level, should lie vacant if these rules were strictly adhered to. Persistent gaps in positions of consumer commissions speak volumes about very low administrative priorities for strengthening the consumer grievance redressal system, which is deplorable. Ironically, the fast growth in market accessibility and increase in the number of consumers purchasing products online demands sanctioning of more posts in addition to the application of digital solutions to ensure prompt grievance redressal. Implementation of the recommendation by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution for immediate and proactive steps to ensure that states and union territories prioritise filling these vacant posts within a fixed time frame is crucial to remove the administrative inertia and restore confidence of consumers in the grievance redressal by the consumer commissions. The central government’s Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution shifts the blame on the state governments for poor implementation of the strengthening of Consumer Commissions. The parliamentary panel, however, is of the view that invoking statutory provisions to shift full responsibility to the states, without evidence of concrete outcomes from the Department’s coordination efforts, appears more procedural than solution-orientated. Putting in place a strong monitoring framework, accountability mechanism, or escalation protocol in the event of persistent non-compliance by states, as recommended by the parliamentary committee, is the pragmatic approach to address the systemic gap. The Committee’s advice to the central government department to develop and share with all states/union territories a time-bound vacancy-filling calendar and establish a quarterly monitoring mechanism to track recruitment progress deserves urgent administrative action to ensure accountability. The most alarming consequence of the consumer grievance redressal system remaining weak in regions like the northeast is that the access to the digital market, internet and online market ecosystem has come when even computer and financial literacy continue to be critically low among the consumers, due to which they are left extremely vulnerable to violation of their consumer rights, exploitative trade practices, and online fraud. The state governments in the region cannot remain indifferent to the weak consumer grievance redressal system persisting for a prolonged period and need to proactively fill existing vacancies to restore institutional credibility in delivering consumer justice. Raising the level of consumer awareness about the grievance redressal system and procedure is as important as strengthening the consumer justice delivery system, and one cannot wait for the other to advance first. Awareness and access must advance together, as delaying one for the other risks undermining both, and in either situation consumers will continue to be the ultimate sufferers.