RUTU MIHIR PANCHAL & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

RUTU MIHIR PANCHAL & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Parliament is constitutionally competent to fix pecuniary jurisdictional limits of consumer commissions and to base those limits on the value of goods or services paid as consideration; such classification satisfies Article 14 because it has an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the object of creating a hierarchical structure for timely and effective redress of consumer disputes; the impugned provisions ss.34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are constitutional and not manifestly arbitrary; further, the Central Consumer Protection Council and Central Consumer Protection Authority must perform reviews and advise the government to ensure...

Parties
Petitioners/appellants: Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors.; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 282 of 2021 Under Article 32; Civil Appeal No. 5670 of 2025 / Final Judgment (disposal)
Outcome
Writ Petition and Civil Appeal dismissed; constitutional challenge to ss.34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 dismissed
Legal Topics
Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, Consideration as Basis for Classification, Article 14 Equality and Reasonable Classification, Performance Audit of Statute, Central Consumer Protection Authority and Council
Constitutional Law Consumer Law Contract Law Administrative Law Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora Consideration as Basis for Classification Article 14 Equality and Reasonable Classification Performance Audit of Statute +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors.

Petitioners/appellants

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 282 of 2021 Under Article 32; Civil Appeal No. 5670 of 2025 / Final Judgment (disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss.34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribing pecuniary jurisdiction on the basis of value of consideration are unconstitutional
  2. 2 Whether Parliament has legislative competence to prescribe pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer commissions
  3. 3 Whether classification based on consideration paid violates Article 14 as arbitrary or discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

Parliament is constitutionally competent to fix pecuniary jurisdictional limits of consumer commissions and to base those limits on the value of goods or services paid as consideration; such classification satisfies Article 14 because it has an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the object of creating a hierarchical structure for timely and effective redress of consumer disputes; the impugned provisions ss.34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are constitutional and not manifestly arbitrary; further, the Central Consumer Protection Council and Central Consumer Protection Authority must perform reviews and advise the government to ensure...

Court Disposition

Writ Petition and Civil Appeal dismissed; constitutional challenge to ss.34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 dismissed

Orders

  • Constitutional challenge to sections 34, 47 and 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 dismissed
  • Central Consumer Protection Council and Central Consumer Protection Authority to, in exercise of their statutory duties under sections 3, 5, 10, 18 to 22, take such measures as may be necessary for survey, review and advise the government about measures necessary for effective and efficient redressal and working of...