The Supreme Court on Wednesday warned that it would impose costs of Rs 1 lakh or Rs 2 lakh on states that fail to file status reports within a week in connection with the vacancies in the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions, reported Live Law.
“If this is the only language you understand, we will do it... and recover it from the officers,” the court said. “Please understand the information that you send in the format to them will facilitate them to analyse it and make a submission to us.”
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh made the observations in a suo motu case to deal with vacancies in consumer commissions across the country.
In an order passed in September, the court had clarified that the verdict of the Bombay High Court striking down the Consumer Protection Act will not impede the appointments that have been already made.
The court had asked a legislative impact assessment report to be submitted within four weeks in August. Such assessment is a process under which social, economic, environmental and institutional impacts of legislative proposals are made.
Amicus curiae Gopal Sankarnarayan had told the court that Gujarat has not filed the status report. Sankarnarayan said that Goa, Delhi, Rajasthan, Kerala, Punjab, Telangana and Uttar Pradesh have not submitted information on staff. He added that Bihar has not submitted a status report on infrastructure.
On Wednesday, the court asked: “Where are the chief secretaries? Do you want us to issue bailable warrants now? Is that what will compel the states to comply with our orders?”
The bench said the Consumer Protection Act was meant to address the small aspects of daily lives of the consumers. “It makes, if I may say so, political sense to see that these posts are manned so that grievances of the people are remedied,” the court said. “That’s all that is required.”
The court also warned the states that it would initiate contempt of court action proceedings if the reports are not filed on time, according to Bar and Bench. “Unless states are very keen to get notices of contempt, they should comply with the deadline,” the bench said.
The bench also emphasised on the need to conduct a legislative impact assessment. To this, Sankarnarayan said that the order was passed so that the assessment would help the court in understanding the requirement of infrastructure and manpower.
“In the absence of such a report, it’s a little bit of stumbling in the dark,” he said. “Whatever numbers we eventually get on infrastructure we would still be unsure of what is the actual requirement.”
Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi said that the legislative impact assessment has been undertaken and submitted via an affidavit. The bench told Lekhi to share a copy of the report with the amicus curiae.
It asked both Lekhi and Sankarnarayan to jointly examine the report. The matter will be heard next on December 1.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!