Why consumer court vacation is against spirit of law

WHY can’t lawyers be like other professionals and take their vacation whenever it suits them, instead of demanding that the entire justice system come to a grinding halt and all their fellow professionals take a break at the same time?

I ask this question with reference to their campaign for restoration of summer and winter vacations in the calendar of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and their argument before the Delhi High Court that “the summer and winter vacation is the least which the State can provide for a decent professional and personal life of the advocates”. What is so special about the advocates that the State must make this provision, particularly when the Consumer Protection (CP) Rules do not provide for such breaks?

In fact, the summer and winter vacations that the consumer courts enjoyed from their inception were in direct conflict with the letter and spirit of the law. It violated the CP Rules that mandated that the ‘working days and hours of the National Commission shall be the same as those of the Central government’. And it militated against the speedy redressal, limiting the time for disposal of complaints to within 90 days, provided under the law. It was only in 2021 that the practice was discontinued in compliance with the law.

However, the Delhi High Court’s order last month, directing the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs to consider the representation of the NCDRC’s Bar Association for reinstatement of the vacation has once again opened an issue of conflict between the interests of consumers and that of lawyers.

In fact, the lawyers argued before the Delhi High Court in their petition that the stoppage of the vacation had severely jeopardised the well-being of the legal fraternity (what about the welfare of the consumers?), and adversely affected the administration of justice. The consumer affairs ministry, on the other hand, contended that vacations hinder consumers’ access to justice and lead to a backlog of cases.

Unfortunately for consumers, the high court rejected the argument of the ministry and said it was completely erroneous to suggest that the vacations would undermine the salutary object of speedy redressal of consumer disputes. “Let the calendar for the NCDRC be fixed in consultation with the president, NCDRC, and taking into account the views and interest of all the stakeholders, including the Bar Association,” the court said. (All India Bar Association of NCDRC vs the Union of India)

Drawing a distinction between the administrative and judicial work of the NCDRC, the high court said Rule 3 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 — “The working days and office hours of the National Commission shall be the same as that of the Central Government” — cannot be construed as conferring the power on the Central government to determine the judicial calendar of the NCDRC.

“While the working days and office hours for the purpose of administrative staff can be fixed in accordance with Rule 3, the NCDRC would enjoy the autonomy as far as drawing up its judicial calendar is concerned…” the court said. It also clarified that while doing so, it would be open to the president, NCDRC, to decide on the days in June and December when the Bench shall not be sitting.

Following the order, the consumer affairs ministry has already held a meeting of all stakeholders and is considering the next step. If consumers, as the primary stakeholders, do not voice their opinion now and lobby hard against these vacations, their interests in general and the speedy redressal promised under the consumer protection law, in particular, may well get compromised.

Considering that the raison d’etre of the Consumer Protection Act is to safeguard the interests of consumers, consumer welfare ought to be the core principle underlying the enforcement of the law. The voice of the lawyers should not be allowed to subdue that of the consumer, or the interests of lawyers should not be permitted to override the interests of consumers. Consumers, in fact, have a responsibility to ensure this, through representations to the government as well as the NCDRC chief. Remember, lawyers are highly influential and have a strong lobby.

— The writer is a consumer affairs expert