India's consumer courts struggle with empty Benches, says report

Consumer Justice Report flags empty benches, rising pendency and falling efficiency, as vacancies and delays weaken justice delivery and erode consumer confidence

India’s consumer-redress system is facing a structural crisis, which begins not with law or design but with empty chairs.

 

The Consumer Justice Report 2026 lays bare a system where vacancies, at both state and district levels, and falling women representation, have hollowed out institutional capacity, slowing justice delivery, and eroding consumer confidence.

 

The report, released by the India Justice Report (IJR), draws on right-to-information data and parliamentary questions to assess the state of State Consumer Disputes Redress Commissions (SCDRCs) across the country.

 

In state commissions, one in five positions is vacant, with some states reporting over 40 per cent unfilled posts. More than half the SCDRCs do not have a full complement of presidents and members. 

Despite a legal mandate under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, requiring at least one woman member in district and state commissions, compliance remains weak.

 

The report noted that women’s representation in SCDRCs declined from 35 per cent in 2021 to 23.2 per cent in 2024, before rising to 29 per cent in 2025. Only Delhi and Sikkim in 2024 reported having a woman president on their state commissions.

 

In several cases, commissions have been unable to even constitute Benches. The situation is compounded by a restrictive appointment framework: Only a sitting or retired high court judge can serve as president of an SCDRC, significantly narrowing the pool of eligible candidates.

 

At district level, the crisis deepens. India has only 685 district commissions for its 775 districts, leaving gaps in basic access to consumer justice. Even where commissions exist, leadership vacancies and staff shortages weaken their functioning. In states like Uttar Pradesh, commissions exist in more districts than required, while several smaller states and Union territories have struggled to fill even sanctioned posts.

 

Pendency driven by institutional gaps

 

Nearly 33 per cent of consumer cases remain pending for more than three years, far exceeding the statutory timeline of three to five months. 

Jharkhand stands out, with nearly 64 per cent of staff positions vacant, which is the highest among reporting states. Similarly, Puducherry and Delhi have reported vacancy levels of 40 per cent or more.

 

Kerala and Himachal Pradesh too have struggled to meet their statutory requirements for constituting Benches, with vacancies extending to both presidents and members.

 

In contrast, a handful of states present a more stable picture, with relatively low vacancy levels and better institutional continuity. Bihar and Haryana stand out as exceptions, having filled both the positions of president and member, particularly among large and mid-sized states. In the metropolitan context, Bengaluru’s district commissions reported a full complement of members and presidents between 2021 and 2025, while Kolkata also maintained consistent staffing across most years.

 

Chennai’s commissions, too, largely met their staffing requirements, with both positions filled for the majority of the observed period. These examples suggest that where appointments are timely and vacancies are minimised, commissions are better positioned to manage caseloads and maintain functional efficiency, even if broader systemic challenges persist.

 

While around 89 per cent of the cases at state and district levels have been disposed of, this headline figure masks a deeper inefficiency. Disposal is not keeping pace with filings, and delays in adjudication continue to grow. The absence of adequate personnel means fewer hearings, slower case movement, and mounting backlogs.

 

Rising caseloads, falling efficiency

 

This institutional strain comes at a time when consumer disputes are increasing. With India’s consumption economy expanding, reflected in rising household expenditure and narrowing rural-urban gaps, more consumers are entering formal markets and, with those, formal dispute systems.

 

The report analyses about 2.86 million cases filed between 2010 and 2024, showing a clear post-pandemic rise in both filings and disposals. However, efficiency is slipping. The annual case clearance rate (CCR), which had risen above 100 per cent in recent years, fell to 98 per cent in 2024, signalling that fresh cases are beginning to outnumber disposals.

 

The ‘justice threshold’ barrier

 

Even as caseloads rise, a significant number of consumers still choose not to approach commissions. The report highlights a critical behavioural insight: People often avoid litigation not because the harm is insignificant, but because the system feels distant, complex, and slow.

 

Whether it is a small overcharge or a denied insurance claim, the perceived effort of navigating the system outweighs the expected benefit. This “justice threshold” reflects the erosion of trust in timely and accessible redress.

 

Uneven performance across states

Vacancies and delays are not evenly distributed. Some states such as Tamil Nadu demonstrate relatively good clearance rates, while others struggle with persistent backlogs. Maharashtra, for instance, records high filings but low efficiency, resulting in significant pendency.

 

Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan perform relatively well among large states, while Telangana and Jharkhand fall behind. Among smaller states, Meghalaya and Sikkim lead, whereas others in the Northeast face capacity constraints.

 

Urban commissions present a mixed picture. Delhi accounts for a large share of metro caseloads, particularly driven by insurance disputes, and continues to see delays, with a significant proportion of cases taking over six months for disposal.

 

Bengaluru, once a high-performing jurisdiction, has witnessed a sharp decline in clearance rates in recent years.

 

Sectoral pressures and structural limits 

Some sectors dominate the litigation landscape. Housing comes on top at national level, followed by insurance and banking. At district level, the “others” category has the highest share, followed by insurance, which alone accounts for a significant share of cases.

 

Efforts such as circuit benches, introduced in states like Maharashtra and Rajasthan, have marginally improved access, but remain limited in scale and impact.

 

A system at crossroads

 

India’s consumer-protection framework, strengthened by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is robust in design. But the report makes clear that implementation deficits, particularly vacancies, are undermining its effectiveness.

 

The consequences are cyclical. Vacancies slow adjudication, delays increase pendency, rising pendency discourages consumers, and reduced trust weakens the system further. 

Uncovering dilemmas

• 1 in 5 posts vacant in state consumer commissions
• Over 40% vacancies in some states
• Jharkhand recorded highest staff vacancy at 64%
• 1 in 3 cases pending for more than 3 years
• In Kerala, J&K, and Jharkhand, up to 80% cases pending for over 3 years