Completely Erroneous To Claim Judicial Vacations Undermine Speedy Consumer Dispute Resolution: Delhi High Court

The order came in response to a petition filed by the All India Bar Association of the NCDRC, which had sought the restoration of summer and winter vacations in the Commission’s calendar, in line with the practices of other courts and tribunals.

A Bench of Justice Sachin Datta dismissed the Union Government’s contention that allowing the Commission to observe vacations in June and December would impede access to justice for consumers, lead to delays, and be detrimental to the stakeholders involved.

The Court observed that the Government’s apprehensions were “wholly unjustified”, and firmly rejected the argument that judicial breaks would hinder the objective of expeditious redressal of consumer grievances.

It added, “It is complete erroneous to suggest that prescribing for vacations, including during June/December, would undermine the salutary object of speedy redressal of consumer disputes.”

The Court emphasized that the President of the NCDRC holds autonomous authority to decide on the Commission’s judicial schedule, including its sitting days and vacation periods. It ruled that it is within the President’s discretion to determine which days, including those in June and December, may be excluded from regular sittings, based on what is expedient and appropriate for the functioning of the Commission.

“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 Court stated.

The petitioners argued that the earlier system of scheduled judicial breaks had been unreasonably discontinued during the pandemic, and had not been reinstated thereafter.

The Court observed that the NCDRC, being a quasi-judicial authority vested with wide powers under the Consumer Protection Act, cannot be equated with an ordinary government department. It stressed that the Commission operates as an independent judicial authority, and therefore must have the autonomy to manage its own schedule and functioning.

In its ruling, the Court also recognized the complexity of the matters typically heard by the NCDRC. It pointed out that the disputes often raise intricate legal and factual issues which require in-depth research, detailed analysis, and comprehensive judicial reasoning. The Court noted that the existing workload during regular court sessions may not always provide sufficient bandwidth to adequately handle such demands.

“Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that judicial vacations provide a crucial window for technical up-gradation without disrupting the daily proceedings. This period is effectively used to implement improvements in infrastructure, digitalization and case management systems,” the Court remarked.

The Court further noted that both the President of the NCDRC and the President of the Bar Association had previously made formal representations to the Department of Consumer Affairs, requesting that the earlier practice of observing vacations be reinstated. This request, the Court observed, had unfortunately not received due consideration from the Union Government.

Taking note of this lapse, the Court directed the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Food and Public Distribution, to duly consider the communication submitted by the NCDRC President.

Cause Title: All India Bar Association Of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission v. Union of India & Anr., [2025:DHC:2757]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Abhijat, Advocates Navneet Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Verma, P.K. Seth, Sagar Saxena, Pratyush Sharma and Avnish Kumar

Respondents: SPC Saarika Singh, Advocates Chetan Jadon and Shivangi Rajawat