India’s consumer justice system is facing a severe capacity crunch, with mounting vacancies and rising pendency slowing down dispute resolution across the country, according to the Consumer Justice Report 2026 released on Wednesday.
The report flags that more than half the posts of presidents and members in state consumer commissions were vacant in 2025, crippling their functioning.
As a result, delays have deepened; at least 35% of cases in state commissions have been pending for over three years, far exceeding the statutory timeline of three to five months for disposal.
The findings are based on an analysis of state and district consumer commissions across 11 indicators, including human resources, infrastructure, workload and budgets. The report draws on RTI responses, parliamentary data and official dashboards to present a national snapshot of consumer dispute redressal.
A key concern flagged is the widening gap between rising caseloads and limited institutional capacity. An analysis of over 28 lakh cases filed between 2010 and 2024 shows that while more than two million cases have been disposed of, pendency continues to rise as fresh filings outpace disposals.
The report highlights that nearly 40% of member posts remain vacant across state and district commissions, while staff shortages average around 20%. In addition, one in ten districts still does not have a consumer commission, forcing consumers to approach civil courts or forgo claims altogether.
Sector-wise, insurance, housing and banking continue to generate the highest number of complaints, together accounting for nearly half of all consumer disputes. These trends reflect persistent service deficiencies in key sectors of the economy.
Maja Daruwala, Editor, India Justice Report, said, “The 2019 consumer protection law is designed to respond to the complexities of the changing marketplace in India and globally. While there are improvements and innovations compared to the previous statute, even the most progressive legislation relies on robust institutional mechanisms. We find that in consumer commissions, gender diversity is restricted to mere compliance, pendency persists, and mediation is ornamental, eventually weakening the promise of institutional resolution and redress for consumers.”
State rankings reveal wide disparities. Andhra Pradesh emerged as the top-performing large state, followed by Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, while Meghalaya topped among smaller states. However, the report notes that even better-performing states show uneven performance across indicators.
Urban centres where consumer transactions are concentrated present a mixed picture. District commissions in major metros disposed of about 76% of cases between 20 22 and early 2025, but nearly a quarter remain pending, with some cities witnessing declining clearance rates.
The report also flags the underutilisation of mediation and Lok Adalats, despite their potential to ease the burden on commissions. Referrals to these mechanisms remain low, limiting faster and cost-effective resolution of disputes.
On the positive side, budget allocations to state commissions have increased by over 50% between 2021–22 and 2024–25, and most commissions meet the minimum requirement of having at least one woman member.
However, the report cautions that higher budgets alone will not address systemic issues unless accompanied by timely appointments, better infrastructure and improved data transparency.
Valay Singh, Lead, India Justice Report, told THE WEEK, “Consumer justice must be as simple as the transactions it seeks to regulate. Filing a complaint should be quick, intuitive and accessible almost at the click of a button. Unless the system becomes truly user-friendly, many consumers will continue to drop out before they even enter it.”
With India’s consumer market expanding rapidly, the report warns that delays in redressal could have wider economic implications. Weak enforcement of consumer rights may erode trust in markets and discourage fair business practices.
Calling for urgent reforms, the report stresses the need for time-bound appointments, full staffing of commissions, better use of mediation, and improved access, especially at the district level, to ensure that consumer justice remains swift, affordable and effective.