Delhi HC Examines Constitutional Validity of Consumer Law Appeal Provisions

 By Adv. Amarjeet Singh, Founder, PRAN – Policy Research Action Network Foundation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging key provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 relating to “substantial question of law” in appeals before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The petition argues that powers similar to those exercised by High Courts under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be vested in tribunals or commissions that may include non-judicial members. The challenge raises important constitutional concerns regarding judicial independence, fairness in adjudication, and access to justice.

The PIL reportedly questions Sections 51(2), 51(3), and 51(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, along with related procedural regulations. According to the petitioners, allowing non-judicial members to decide substantial legal questions may violate constitutional safeguards under Articles 14 and 21.

The matter is significant because consumer commissions today handle disputes involving insurance claims, housing, medical negligence, banking services, e-commerce, and public utilities affecting millions of citizens. Any dilution of judicial standards at the appellate stage can directly impact consumer confidence and legal certainty.

The case also revives the broader national debate on tribunal reforms and whether bodies exercising quasi-judicial or High Court-like functions should maintain stronger judicial composition and independence.

As consumer litigation continues to expand across India, ensuring transparent, fair, and constitutionally sound adjudicatory mechanisms remains essential for protecting public trust in the justice delivery system.

Source: LiveLaw