Empty benches, long waits: Consumer courts strain under delays, vacancies

MUMBAI: For a homebuyer awaiting possession, an insurance claimant battling rejection, or a bank customer locked in a dispute, the wait for justice is getting longer—and increasingly uncertain.India’s consumer courts, envisioned as fast-track grievance redressal forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, are today grappling with severe capacity constraints, mounting vacancies and rising pendency, the latest India Justice Report (IJR) 2026 has found.The findings point to a system under stress: more than half of the president and member posts in State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (SCDRCs) remained vacant in 2025, while a significant share of cases has been pending for over three years—far exceeding the law’s mandate of disposing matters within five months.

“The will of Parliament is reflected in a legislation but if the legislation is made non-functional then that will is also defeated,” said Justice (Retd.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Supreme Court judge. “These gaps affect the consumer protection institutional structure and erode confidence in grievance redressal.”Everyday disputes, prolonged battlesThe crisis is most visible in sectors closest to citizens’ daily lives. Disputes related to insurance, housing and banking together account for a substantial share of the caseload across commissions.

At the national level, housing disputes alone constitute a dominant portion, reflecting the distress among homebuyers dealing with delayed or stalled projects. Insurance disputes are particularly prominent at the district level, where claim rejections and settlement delays frequently lead to litigation.For many consumers, what was meant to be a quick remedy has turned into a prolonged legal battle.“The law is designed to respond to the complexities of a changing marketplace, but even the most progressive legislation relies on robust institutional mechanisms,” said Maja Daruwala, editor of the India Justice Report.

“Persistent vacancies and capacity gaps undermine the spirit of consumer protection and lead to ineffective grievance redressal.”Maharashtra’s paradox: High filings, low clearanceThe report’s findings are especially relevant for Mumbai and Maharashtra. The state recorded the highest number of consumer cases filed among large states, but its ability to dispose of them remains comparatively weak.This mismatch between inflow and disposal has left thousands of consumers stuck in the system, highlighting the need for stronger administrative and judicial capacity.Wide disparities across statesThe rankings reveal stark differences in how states manage consumer justice. Andhra Pradesh emerged as the top performer among large and mid-sized states, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Karnataka, while Telangana ranked last.Maharashtra was placed in the middle of the table, reflecting moderate performance despite high case volumes. Among smaller states, Meghalaya and Sikkim led the rankings.The variation underscores that delays are not inevitable but often linked to governance, staffing and effective utilisation of resources.Vacancies hollowing out the systemA major factor behind delays is the shortage of personnel across commissions.At the state level, a large proportion of president and member positions remain unfilled. The situation is mirrored at the district level, where many commissions function without full benches. In some states, leadership positions have remained vacant for extended periods, directly affecting case disposal and institutional functioning.Between 2021 and 2025, only a limited number of state commissions had continuous leadership, while others operated without a president for years.Pendency and delays risingThe report highlights a steady rise in pending cases across the country. While a large number of cases are disposed of annually, the overall backlog continues to grow, with a sizeable proportion of cases remaining unresolved for years.Long pendency not only delays justice but also increases the financial and emotional burden on consumers, many of whom are already dealing with service failures or financial loss.Access gaps and limited reachDespite statutory provisions mandating a consumer commission in every district, the infrastructure remains incomplete. Not all districts are covered, and even where commissions exist, sanctioned posts do not always match requirements.This uneven spread forces litigants to travel or face delays in accessing hearings. Mechanisms like mediation and Lok Adalats, intended to ease the burden on courts, remain underutilised.Gender diversity: Compliance, not parityThe report also flags concerns over gender representation. While most commissions meet the minimum requirement of having at least one woman member, leadership roles remain overwhelmingly male-dominated.Only a handful of commissions have had women presidents in recent years, and the overall representation of women among members and staff remains limited.Some improvement, but gaps persistThere are, however, signs of progress. Budget allocations for consumer commissions have increased significantly in recent years, and utilisation levels remain high.

Several states have maintained consistent leadership and complied with basic gender norms.Yet, these improvements have not translated into uniformly better outcomes, as structural gaps in staffing and infrastructure continue to persist.System at a tipping pointFormer Supreme Court judge Justice (Retd.) Madan B Lokur described the situation as deeply concerning. “The system is functioning at a subsistence level, with high vacancies and long delays.

It raises the question whether these commissions are truly serving as effective grievance redressal bodies,” he said.With pendency continuing to rise and delays stretching well beyond mandated timelines, the report warns that consumer confidence in the system is eroding.For millions of Indians, the promise of simple, speedy and inexpensive justice now risks becoming increasingly difficult to realise.Backlog & Delays

Vacancies Crisis

Where Complaints Come From

Every 4th district complaint: insuranceCases filed: 91,449 (highest)Disposal rate: 64.5% (lowest among large states)State Rankings

Infrastructure Gap: 685 commissions for 775 districtsGender Gap

Budget Trends