The Supreme Court declined to entertain a Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus to extend the tenure of a presiding member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) scheduled to superannuate on July 31, 2026.

The Petitioner had prayed for an interim and final direction extending her tenure until September 8, 2026, and subsequently until she attained the age of 65 years on July 18, 2027, placing reliance on the apex court's orders dated March 9, 2026 in SLP (C) Nos.11021-11022 of 2020.

However, the Bench clarified that the transitional protections and statements made by the learned Attorney General under the Tribunal Reforms Act apply exclusively to Central Government tribunals and do not extend to state commissions.

While expressing its disinclination to interfere under Article 32, the Court granted explicit liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226, strongly observing that the State cannot act lethargically or leave crucial judicial vacancies unfilled indefinitely.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "Though we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, as the issue pertains to the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and not a central tribunal/commission. Liberty is granted to any public-spirited person to approach the jurisdictional High Court for issue, for issuance of appropriate directions for appointment of members of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission."

The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted, "There are orders passed by this court, vide order dated..."

Chief Justice Surya Kant said, "Those don't apply to this, this state consumer dispute redressal commission."

The Counsel submitted, "secondly, why they're entertaining the present SLPs for the reason that the contention raised by various Bar Associations that, in the event of non-extension of tenure of sitting members, the tribunals shall become dysfunctional. So that will cause greater prejudice to the cause of the litigants. In this case, what is happening is, I mean, one post is still vacant and if she is to retire on 31st of July 2026, this year itself, then two more, two posts will go..."

CJI Kant said, "For that you will approach the High court, seeking a direction that the state must appoint the members immediately. The state should not be allowed to act in a lethargic manner. They're obligated to appoint the members...For that you will seek a direction from the High Court."

Chief Justice Kant added, "SCDRC is not there. Because of the transit period of the reforms, the Tribunal Reforms Act partly being whispered on by this court and now that Parliament is seized of the matter, in the... that's why we have for a transit period for the central tribunals that would run."

The Petitioner then sought an extension of the tenure of a sitting Presiding Member of Bench No. 3 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), who was scheduled to superannuate on July 31, 2026.

To which the Court said, "Our problem that the connection made statement made by the learned Attorney General that applies to all the central tribunals and commissions...But you immediately should approach the High Court for a direction for appointment of the members...The state cannot be permitted to keep the member vacancies unfilled for so long period."

The Bench clarified that the orders relied upon by the Petitioner pertained exclusively to Central Tribunals under the purview of the Union of India, following the transitional adjustments under the Tribunal Reforms Act.

The Bench observed that the statements made by the learned Attorney General, which formed the basis of the protection, were restricted to Central Government tribunals and did not extend to State Consumer Commissions.

Consequently, the Bench expressed its disinclination to entertain the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, given the distinct institutional framework of the state commission.

While refusing to grant the relief prayed for, the Apex Court observed that the State could not be permitted to allow crucial judicial vacancies to remain unfilled for an indefinite period.

The Plea prayed, "Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction thereby directing the Respondents for extending the tenure of the Petitioner in accordance with the orders dated 09.03.2026 and 19.05.2026 as passed by this Hon'™ble Court in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 11021-11022 of 2020 by extending the tenure of the Petitioner not only till 08.09.2026 but also beyond the said date till she attains the age of 65 years on 18.07.2027 regularisation of service of the Petitioner..."

Accordingly, the Bench disposed of the matter by granting explicit liberty to any public-spirited person or aggrieved party to approach the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek appropriate directions for the immediate appointment of members to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Cause Title: Soma Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [Writ Petition (C) No. 809/2026]

Tags: