Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking restoration of summer and winter vacations in the calendar of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) and also that the calendar of the NCDRC be drawn up at par with the calendar of other commissions, tribunals and courts, Sachin Datta, J., disposed of the present petition with a direction to Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (‘Respondent 1’) to consider the communication addressed by the President, NCDRC to Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution requesting to consider restoring the practice of Summer and Winter vacations in the Commission that was existing prior to the Pandemic Vacations for lawyers and the other professionals of the judicial fraternity have been in vogue for long.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner was a registered Bar Association of NCDRC which, inter alia, worked for the collective welfare of its member Advocates practicing before the NCDRC. NCDRC was a quasi-judicial body which was set up in the year 1988 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for adjudication of consumer complaints/disputes.
It was submitted by the petitioner, that like all quasi-judicial authorities, the NCDRC, ever since inception, were observing summer vacations in June and winter vacations in the last week of December. It was also submitted that this practice was followed till 2020 but discontinued from 2021 onwards, presumably on account of the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Further, it was submitted that prior to 2021, the calendar of NCDRC was consistent with the calendar of various courts/tribunals. However, without any consultation with Bar Association, there had been a change regarding the drawing up of the calendar. It was averred that the aforesaid change was quite divergent viz-a-viz calendars of several authorities/tribunal. These tribunals also function under the supervision/administration of ministries under the Union of India. It was submitted that there was no justification for this divergence, and that the same severely jeopardized the well-being of the legal fraternity and adversely affects the administration of justice.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that at the outset, it would be necessary to emphasize that under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, NCDRC was a tribunal which is vested with judicial powers and functions for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes that fall within its purview. The Court stated that the NCDRC, being an authority vested with judicial powers, could not be treated as akin to a government department. Given the nature of judicial functions discharged by the NCDRC, it enjoyed autonomy as an independent authority exercising judicial functions.
The Court referred to Madras Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1, and stated that thus, there could be no cavil that NCDRC enjoyed autonomy which flows from the very nature of functions discharged by it. In the very nature of things, this autonomy must extend to all facets of the functioning of the NCDRC including for the purpose of determining its calendar.
The Court stated that the suggestion in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent 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”, was wholly unjustified. The Court stated that the notion that courts/tribunals had excessive vacations was a common myth, based on a complete misconception as regards judicial functioning and workload. Also, contrary to some prevailing notions, even on working days, judicial work was not confined to presiding over court proceedings and extends well beyond regular working hours.
The Court stated that judicial notice could also be taken of the fact that the cases arising for consideration by the tribunals such as NCDRC often involve complex issues, requiring considerable time in analysis, research and incorporation of detailed legal reasoning in its judgments, for which there might not be sufficient time during regular Courts days. Moreover, the Court stated that it was a matter of common knowledge that judicial vacations provide a crucial window for technical up-gradation without disrupting the daily proceedings. This period was effectively used to implement improvement in infrastructure, digitalization and case management systems.
Therefore, the Court stated that it was completely erroneous to suggest that prescribing for vacations, including during June/December, would undermine the salutary object of speedy redressal of consumer disputes.
Thus, in the circumstances, the Court disposed of the present petition with a direction to Respondent 1 to consider the communication addressed by the President, NCDRC to Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution requesting to consider restoring the practice of Summer and Winter vacations in the Commission that was existing prior to the Pandemic Vacations for lawyers and the other professionals of the judicial fraternity have been in vogue for long. The Court stated that it was unfortunate that the aforesaid communication of President, NCDRC had not been considered by Respondent 1.
Further, the Court clarified that the President, NCDRC should have autonomy for the purpose of determining the judicial calendar of NCDRC /scheduling sittings of the Commission, as might be expedient. While doing so, it should be open for the President, NCDRC to prescribe certain days in June/December, during which the Benches should not be sitting/convening.
[All India Bar Association of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 5437 of 2024, decided on 17-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Abhijat, Senior Advocate along with Navneet Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Verma, P.K. Seth, Sagar Saxena, Pratyush Sharma and Avnish Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Saarika Singh, SPC along with Chetan Jadon and Shivangi Rajawat, Advocates.