Today, on 27th January,The Supreme Court held that consumer matters from Sikkim may continue within the State for now, subject to safeguards. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant barred transfer of Sikkim cases elsewhere pending adjudication on pay and allowances.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court observed that, for the time being, consumer matters relating to Sikkim may continue to remain within the State, but with a crucial safeguard.
The bench comprise of Chief Justice Surya Kant , Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that no consumer cases originating from Sikkim shall be transferred to any other State during the pendency of the proceedings. This interim protection aims to preserve jurisdictional stability while the Court continues to examine broader issues concerning pay, allowances, and the institutional functioning of consumer commissions.
The Court stated,
“In the interim, the matter may continue to remain with the State of Sikkim, and it may be clarified that no cases from Sikkim shall be transferred to any other State during this period.”
The Bench noted that both connected matters were assisted by the amicus. One part of the case deals specifically with the issue of pay and allowances. After the earlier judgment, several States have approached the Court seeking modifications, including Punjab and Sikkim.
Referring to Sikkim, the Court recorded the earlier direction that the matter be decided by the senior-most Single Judge of the High Court, with any appeal to be heard by a Division Bench presided over by the President of the Commission, a former Chief Justice.
Placing his suggestions before the Bench, counsel submitted that the current situation in Sikkim is not in line with that direction.
He told the Court that,
“At present, in Sikkim, the Commission is being presided over by an administrative, non-judicial member, and matters have been heard in this manner for over a year and a half. This, is wholly improper.”
He added that
“Yet, it has been projected as a justification in their reply before the NCDRC.”
After hearing the submissions, the Court issued an interim clarification.
The court stated that,
“In the interim, the matter may continue to remain with the State of Sikkim”.
The court further made it clear that “no cases from Sikkim shall be transferred to any other State during this period.”
Factual Background of the Case:
The public interest litigation was initiated to address longstanding concerns regarding the service conditions, remuneration, and functional independence of members of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions across the country. The issue gained significance following judicial directions aimed at standardizing pay structures and ensuring judicial oversight in consumer adjudicatory bodies.
Following the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment on pay and allowances, several States approached the Court seeking modification of the directions, citing administrative and structural difficulties in implementation. Among the States that filed applications for modification were Punjab and Sikkim, raising specific concerns linked to the functioning of their respective Consumer Commissions.
Both connected matters before the Court were assisted by an amicus curiae, who provided inputs on the institutional framework governing consumer commissions. One of the key issues placed before the bench related specifically to pay and allowances, while the other focused on the procedural and judicial propriety of case adjudication within State Commissions.
The amicus highlighted inconsistencies in how States were implementing judicial directions, particularly where non-judicial members were presiding over adjudicatory proceedings, which raised serious concerns about legality and fairness.
The Supreme Court of India is presently examining a plea seeking interim relief against the transfer of consumer dispute cases pending final adjudication, alongside issues concerning the pay and allowances of members of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. The matter arises from PIL No. 1144 of 2021, titled In Re Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
A major point of discussion before the Court related to the State of Sikkim. Reference was made to earlier directions suggesting that disputes concerning consumer commissions in Sikkim should be decided by the senior-most Single Judge of the High Court, with any appeal to be heard by a Division Bench presided over by the President of the Commission, who is a former Chief Justice.
In this context, the amicus expressed serious reservations about the present functioning of the Sikkim State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It was pointed out that the Commission is currently being headed by an administrative, non-judicial member, and that consumer matters have been heard in this manner for more than one and a half years.
According to the submissions, such an arrangement is wholly improper and undermines the judicial character of the consumer adjudicatory process. Despite this, the State of Sikkim reportedly relied on this very arrangement as a justification in its reply before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
The Court’s refusal to allow inter-State transfer of Sikkim cases at this stage also prevents potential jurisdictional confusion and delays, particularly for consumers seeking timely redressal.
The ongoing proceedings in In Re Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reflect the Supreme Court’s broader effort to strengthen consumer adjudicatory mechanisms across India.
As the Court continues to hear modification pleas from various States, the final outcome is expected to have far-reaching implications on service conditions of commission members, judicial oversight, and the structural integrity of consumer dispute redressal bodies.
Case Title: IN RE PAY AND ALLOWANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE U.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (PIL No. 1144/2021)