Kiran Raj

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the President of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) shall have autonomy to determine the judicial calendar of the Commission. The Court directed the Union of India to consider the representation forwarded by the President of NCDRC regarding the restoration of summer and winter vacations and to finalize the calendar in consultation with the President, taking into account the views of all stakeholders, including the concerned Bar Association.

The petition before the High Court of Delhi was instituted by the All India Bar Association of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking restoration of summer and winter vacations in the judicial calendar of the NCDRC. The petitioner, a registered Bar Association representing advocates practicing before the NCDRC, submitted that such vacations had been a consistent practice since the inception of the Commission in 1988 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, until their discontinuation from the year 2021, presumably due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Also Read: “Absence of Motive Cannot Result in Acquittal When Circumstances Are Convincing” | Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Complete Chain of Evidence

It was submitted that prior to the discontinuation, the calendar of the NCDRC included summer vacations in June and winter vacations in the last week of December. The Association argued that the discontinuation was done unilaterally without consultation and was inconsistent with the practices of other quasi-judicial authorities, including the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), National Green Tribunal (NGT), Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. These bodies, according to the petitioner, operate under similar administrative oversight from various Ministries of the Government of India and continue to observe judicial vacations.

The petitioner highlighted that the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC), which functions under the administrative purview of the NCDRC, continues to observe vacations in accordance with the established pattern. It was contended that the absence of similar provisions in the NCDRC calendar created a disparity that was arbitrary and unjustified.

The petitioner pointed out that in the absence of casual or medical leave entitlements, the legal fraternity relies heavily on judicial vacations for rest, recuperation, and to attend to professional and personal obligations. It was submitted that the mental and physical well-being of advocates, who often work in high-stress conditions and without the benefits accorded to salaried employees, was adversely affected by the absence of scheduled breaks.

On 29 August 2023, a formal representation was submitted by the President and General Secretary of the petitioner Association to the President of the NCDRC, requesting restoration of vacations in accordance with prior practice and to align the Commission’s calendar with other judicial and quasi-judicial forums. Subsequently, on 25 September 2023, the President of the NCDRC addressed a letter to the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, forwarding the Association’s request for consideration. Despite this communication, no action was taken by the respondent, prompting the present writ petition.

The petition asserted that the removal of judicial vacations effectively deprived advocates practicing before the NCDRC of equivalent rest periods observed by their peers in other fora, thereby impacting their right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was emphasized that such action failed to acknowledge the contribution of advocates, many of whom work pro bono in furtherance of public interest and fundamental rights.

In response, the Union of India, through its counter-affidavit, urged the Court to consider the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which emphasizes the timely and efficient redressal of consumer disputes. It argued that the observance of extended judicial vacations would disrupt proceedings, lead to an accumulation of pending cases, and compromise consumer access to justice. The affidavit further emphasized that each tribunal operates under distinct circumstances and the practices followed by other bodies could not be mechanically applied to the NCDRC.

The Registrar of the NCDRC also filed a counter-affidavit affirming that the representation submitted by the petitioner had indeed been forwarded to the Ministry. However, it was clarified that under Rule 3 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Rules, 2020, the working days and office hours of the Commission are to mirror those of the Central Government. Accordingly, it was stated that the Commission did not have the authority to unilaterally declare judicial vacations and that the subject matter was within the jurisdiction of the Central Government.

Against this backdrop, the High Court was called upon to examine the institutional autonomy of the NCDRC and the procedural legality of its judicial calendar being governed solely by executive directions. The Court reviewed the statutory framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and associated Rules, along with constitutional provisions concerning the status and functioning of tribunals. The central issue was whether the NCDRC, being a quasi-judicial body vested with judicial powers, had the requisite independence to determine its own calendar, specifically regarding judicial sittings and vacations.

The High Court, in its examination, focused on the legal character of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the autonomy it possesses in relation to its judicial functions. Justice Sachin Datta observed that the NCDRC, established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is a tribunal vested with judicial powers for adjudicating consumer disputes and therefore cannot be treated as analogous to an ordinary department of the government.

The Court recorded that “under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, NCDRC is a tribunal which is vested with judicial powers and functions for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes that fall within its purview.” In support of this, reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench judgment in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595, as reiterated in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., (2023) 11 SCC 594. The Supreme Court in that case held:

“An authority other than a court may be vested by statute with judicial power in widely different circumstances, which it would be impossible and indeed inadvisable to attempt to define exhaustively… Such a power of adjudication implies that the authority must act judicially and must determine the dispute by ascertainment of the relevant facts on the materials before it and by application of the relevant law to those facts.”

The Court then noted that the NCDRC satisfied this test and could therefore be regarded as a "tribunal" within the meaning of Articles 136 and 227 of the Constitution. In this regard, it was further stated: “The National Commission can be said to be a Tribunal which is vested by statute with the powers to determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them.”

The judgment also referenced decisions from other High Courts, including the Calcutta High Court in M/s Kesoram Industries Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank, where it was held that forums such as the NCDRC have “trappings of courts and are adjudicatory bodies… though not in strict sense, but are judiciary set up by the government to protect the consumer rights.”

The Court found that the structure and functions of the NCDRC justified its classification as a judicial authority that must retain autonomy in judicial matters. In this context, the Court considered Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides that any order passed by the Commission is enforceable in the same manner as a civil court decree. The provision states: “Every order made by a District Commission, State Commission or the National Commission, shall be enforced by it in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a Court in a suit before it…”

The Court observed: “In the aforesaid conspectus, it is evident that the NCDRC being an authority vested with wide ‘judicial powers’, cannot be treated as akin to a government department. Given the nature of judicial functions discharged by the NCDRC, it enjoys autonomy as an independent authority exercising judicial functions.”

Further, the Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1, which emphasized that when the Central Government is a litigant or stakeholder in proceedings before a tribunal, it should not have administrative control over the tribunal's operations. The Court quoted: “Allowing the Central Government to participate in the administrative functioning of [a tribunal], in our view, would impinge upon the independence and fairness of the Members… Vesting of the power… with the Central Government would undermine the independence and fairness…”

The Court distinguished between administrative and judicial functioning, stating that while Rule 3 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Rules, 2020 mandates that working days and office hours for administrative staff should follow the Central Government’s calendar, Rule 5 confers judicial autonomy upon the President of the NCDRC. Rule 5 provides: “The President of the National Commission shall convene sittings of the National Commission as and when it may be necessary, and such sittings shall be notified by the National Commission.”

Accordingly, it was held that: “Rule 3 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission) Rules, 2020 cannot be construed as conferring power of the Central Government to determine the judicial calendar of the NCDRC.”

The Court dismissed concerns raised by the respondents regarding backlog of cases and delays due to vacations. It stated: “The suggestion in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 that prescribing for vacations in June/December would be detrimental as it would lead ‘to backlog of cases, hinder consumers’ access to justice and negatively impact all the stakeholders’, is wholly unjustified.”

The Court observed that judicial vacations are not only a long-standing tradition but also a functional necessity. It took note of a prior judgment of the same Court in W.P.(C) 4138/2013, upheld by the Supreme Court, which affirmed that judicial vacations are used by judges to write judgments, review records, and attend to important administrative matters. The judgment quoted: “Most Judges do not spend their entire vacations vacationing but spend a substantial part of the time either in their office at home or in the High Court writing judgments which have been reserved by them prior to vacations.”

The Court stated the importance of judicial time outside the courtroom and concluded that: “It is, therefore, completely erroneous to suggest that prescribing for vacations, including during June/December, would undermine the salutary object of speedy redressal of consumer disputes.”

In these circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.1 to consider the aforesaid communication addressed by the President, NCDRC to respondent no.1/Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. Let the calendar for the NCDRC be fixed in consultation with President, NCDRC and taking into account the views and interest of all the stakeholders, including the Bar Association.

Also Read: In All Fairness, the Respondent Authority Ought to Have Noticed: Writ Petition Maintainable U/S 9 As Order Merely Closes Proceedings Without Granting or Refusing Relief: Kerala HC

Further, it is clarified that the President, NCDRC shall have autonomy for the purpose of determining the judicial calendar of NCDRC /scheduling sittings of the Commission, as may be expedient. While doing so, it shall be open for the President, NCDRC to prescribe certain days in June/December, during which the Benches shall not be sitting/convening.

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. The pending application also stands disposed of.

For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhijat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Navneet Kumar, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Mr. P.K. Seth, Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. Pratyush Sharma, and Mr. Avnish Kumar, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Ms. Saarika Singh, Senior Panel Counsel along with Mr. Chetan Jadon and Ms. Shivangi Rajawat, Advocates for Respondents No. 1 and 2.

Full Case Title: All India Bar Association of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission v. Union of India & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 2757

Case Number: W.P.(C) 5437/2024

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

[Read/Download order]