AMPLIFYING CONSUMER VOICE: A CLOSER LOOK INSIDE THE CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCILS UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 

                  ~ Vaibhav Bhardwaj, fifth year law student at GGSIPU

Abstract

The Consumer Protection Councils were made to help people in India. They were set up under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. The goal of these councils is to protect the rights of consumers. They do this by making people aware of their rights, talking to the government about policies and representing consumers at the state and district levels. More and more people shop online. The Consumer Protection Councils can help make sure that companies and the government listen to what consumers have to say.. So far these councils have not been very effective. This is because they do not have the power to make companies do what they say they do not meet regularly, they do not have the skills and the government does not have to listen to them. This article looks at the laws that set up the Consumer Protection Councils, how they compare to countries and what the courts have said in some important cases like Hindustan Unilever Ltd. V. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. And Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Wellness Products Association. It finds some problems with how the councils work and suggests some changes. The article says that the Consumer Protection Councils need to be able to handle complaints from consumers in a way especially when it comes to digital problems. They need to use data to make decisions and involve more people from outside the government. The government also needs to be held accountable for what it does. If these changes are made the Consumer Protection Councils can help make sure that companies follow the rules and that people are treated fairly when they shop online. The Consumer Protection Councils can be very helpful in making digital markets work better for everyone.

1. INTRODUCTION

Following the 1991 economic reforms India witnessed a multifold increase in private manufacturing share in the GDP^[1] underpinned by robust growth in household consumption. Similarly, the availability of affordable high speed 5G internet especially post 2016 has established a thriving digital marketplace. This e-commerce ecosystem has emerged as a critical economic pillar, contributing to an estimated $125 billion in Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) during FY24.^[2] However, major challenges emerged due to poor quality control measures used by Indian manufacturers which led to serious consumer grievances, furthermore, in 1985 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution titled United Nations Guidelines on Consumer Protection^[3] India being a signatory to the resolution promptly passed The Consumer Protection Act, 1986^[4].

1. 1986 Dawn of Consumer Welfare Jurisprudence

Prior to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019^[5], the legal framework for consumer welfare in India was governed primarily by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Often hailed as the magna carta of Indian consumer laws as it laid down the cornerstone for consumer welfare jurisprudence, this legislation aimed at protecting consumers from exploitation and unfair trade practices. Its most salient feature was the statutory recognition of six fundamental consumer rights^[6]: Right to Safety, Information, Choice, Representation, Redressal, and Consumer Education. Moreover, the 1986 Act was compensatory in nature^[7]; it was designed to provide a simple, speedy, and inexpensive redressal mechanism without the need for complex legal cases and bureaucratic red tapism.

2. Gradual Decline of 1986 Framework

It applied to all goods and services across private, public, and cooperative sectors, ensuring a wide ambit of protection against defects in goods and deficiencies in services.^[8] Despite its initial success, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, gradually lost its efficacy due to the drastic transformation of the Indian market from a traditional agricultural dominant economy to a complex digital first ecosystem it is today. The 1986 framework was silent on various modern retail structures leaving significant regulatory gaps regarding various booming e-commerce marketplaces, especially to the recently founded ways of small businesses directly selling their products and services to the end consumers, tele-marketing and D2C frameworks which left online consumers vulnerable without specific legal recourse. Furthermore, the dispute redressal mechanism as described to be originally summary in nature, became overly exhaustive and plagued by procedural delays, high pendency of cases and rigid jurisdictional rules that compelled consumers to litigate at the seller's location rather than their own.

3. 2019 Act & Emphasis on Advice, Education and Awareness

One of the salient feature of the 2019^[9] act is the emphasis on educating the masses about consumer rights and laying the foundation of a consumer welfare system which caters and engages with the public on the district level. To further this initiative the act envisages the establishment^[10] of consumer protection councils (hereinafter, “CPCs”). Within this framework, the CPCs are meant to monitor trends, raise awareness and advise the government on various policy changes required to strengthen the consumer welfare regime. This article aims to examine the statutory design of CPCs, its functions, advisory role in practice, prominent legal scenarios, key operational challenges, real world efficacy and potential reforms.

2. STATUTORY DESIGN OF CPCs

 

1. Central Consumer Protection Council

Under Chapter II of the 2019 Act, s.3 to s.5 seeks to establish a consumer protection council on the central level. Section?3^[11]The act requires the Central Government to establish a Central Consumer Protection Council (hereinafter, “Central Council”) through a notification. The Act specifies the composition of the council which comprises The Minister in charge of Department of Consumer Affairs at the union level who is the de facto chairperson and such other official or non-official members as the government may prescribe. In effect, the Council is chaired by the Union Consumer Affairs Minister, with additional members drawn from central ministries, regulators, Parliament, consumer organisations and other stakeholders. Additionally, under the Rule 3 of 2020 Rules^[12] The membership is capped at 36 and includes State Ministers, MPs, the CCPA Chief Commissioner, NCDRC Registrar, consumer activists and experts. The term of the once instituted central council has been prescribed to be three years.^[13] Section 4^[14] specifies that the Central Council should hold meetings as they deem necessary but must meet at least once a year, s.5^[15] further defines that the object of the council is to render advice on promotion and protection of the consumer’s rights under this Act.

Rule 7^[16] of the 2020 Rules^[17] describes the formation of something called the “working groups” which are formed from its own members. Instead of the entire Central Council trying to manage every small consumer issue that falls before it, they assign respective tasks to such formed groups with instructions to fulfill it within a strict deadline under which these tasks are to be completed. These groups report directly to the Chairperson, and their findings are placed before the Council for preferably during a meeting as prescribed under s.4 of the Act. The subrules^[18] appended to rule 7 describes these working groups as non-permanent in nature thus they are essentially ad-hoc bodies that automatically dissolve once their assigned task is completed. This prevents unnecessary bureaucracy and red tapism which further ensures that specific consumer issues get focused attention. Rule 8^[19] further describes the place of meeting ordinarily being New Delhi subject to the chairperson’s opinion to hold the meetings at any other place they might deem fit

2. State Consumer Protection Council

Each State Government must establish a State Consumer Protection Council (hereinafter, “State Council”) for the state^[20]. The State Council’s role is similar to its central counterpart; render advice and promote consumer welfare legislation; it is chaired by the State’s Consumer Affairs Minister and includes other official & non-official members as prescribed. Uniquely, Section?6^[21] also allows the Central Government to nominate up to ten non-official members to a State Council. By statute each State Council is required to meet not less than twice a year, with time and place as decided by the State Chairperson. Section?7^[22] fixes its object as to render advice on promotion and protection of consumer rights under this Act within the State. Thus, the State Council’s major role is advising on state level issues. This clear demarcation of National and State level Consumer Protection Council shows how federalism has been incorporated within the consumer welfare jurisprudence; this strengthens consumer awareness on a grassroot level.

3. District Consumer Protection Council

Further, the state government is empowered to form district level consumer protection councils^[23] (hereinafter, “District Council”) chaired by the district collector assisted by such other official and non-official members as prescribed. Similar to the state council such district councils must meet twice a year mandatorily with the place and time of the meeting as decided by the district collector. Section 9^[24] of the act defines the scope of the object of such district councils, once again the act prescribes a similar object as it does for the central & state level consumer councils that being, to render advice on promotion and protection of consumer rights within the district. Thus, the main role of district councils lie in identifying local market malpractices and organizing district level awareness campaigns working with close coordination of state consumer protection councils.

 

III.     TACKLING UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND JURISDICTION

In framing their advice CPC draws inspiration from the definitions as provided in the act and legal interpretation of various clauses as done by the Hon’ble Courts throughout the existence of consumer welfare regime. A prominent example of this lies under Section?2(47)^[25] defines “unfair trade practices” and Section?2(11)^[26] defines “deficiency” any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law. These statutory concepts underpin consumer disputes e.g. Magic Remedies v. CCPA^[27], on false health ads, and HUL v. Reckitt Benckiser,^[28] on comparative ads. A CPC analyzing market trends will consider these definitions. Additionally, the Act significantly expanded territorial jurisdiction: now consumers can file complaints where they reside or work, not just where the seller is located. This resolves the 1986 Act’s ambiguity in online sales. CPCs can advise implementation of this change for instance, by urging states to publicize the new rules.

In Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd^[29] Hon’ble Delhi High Court laid down comprehensive legal guidelines specifically relating to comparative advertising done by companies noting that although comparative advertisement is permissible under fair use any comparison done which shows the compared product being inferior quality must be supported by rigorous scientific evidence. This decision stands as a pillar in regulating comparative advertisements. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Wellness Products Association^[30] Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered all health-related claims be supported by scientifically credible evidence and clinical trials. This judgment assumes particular importance in light of a variety of spurious health claims that proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 not as merely a statutory guideline for protection of consumers but as an extension of the Constitutional mandate for social justice under Article 38^[31]. This judicial trend is evident in the landmark case of Rutu Mihir Panchal v. Union of India^[32], where the Court upheld the constitutionality of the new pecuniary jurisdiction limits based on "consideration paid." The Bench reasoned that this classification under the 2019 Act was not arbitrary but had a rational nexus with the objective of providing speedy justice. By validating this streamlined access to justice the Court implicitly reinforced Article 14^[33], ensuring that consumer forums remain accessible to the common man rather than becoming playgrounds for litigation which takes years to yield any considerable relief.

This constitutional protection extends beyond mere access to courts and touches upon the fundamental Right to Life and Dignity under Article 21.^[34] In Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.^[35] The Hon’ble Supreme Court treated a builder’s failure to provide an Occupancy Certificate as a "continuing wrong." The judgment highlighted that the right to information knowing the legal status of one’s home and the right to safety are paramount. By holding the builder accountable even years after possession, the Court emphasized that a consumer’s "awareness" is not a one-time check but a continuous right that the State must protect.

Furthermore, the judiciary has shifted the burden of awareness about the goods and services being rendered from the buyer earlier known as caveat emptor (let the buyer be aware) to the seller caveat venditor (let the seller aware the buyer) In Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor,^[36] The Court held that consumers cannot be held hostage to indefinite delays and have an absolute right to a refund with interest. Similarly in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi^[37], it clarified that legal professionals fall outside the Act's purview because they serve the justice delivery system a sovereign constitutional function rather than a mere commercial trade. Together, these judgments paint a picture of a "welfare state" where the Consumer Protection Act serves as the primary vehicle for enforcing the constitutional rights of the modern citizen.

 

IV.     KEY CHALLENGES BEFORE CPCs

Consumer Protection Councils (CPCs) were envisioned to act as the “guiding voice” of the consumer class facing grievances at the hands of unfair trade practices and manufacturing defects; however, their efficacy has been severely hampered by their inherently advisory nature under the act. Unlike the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)^[38], which has investigative power, CPCs can only recommend changes; they cannot enforce them. This means their advice often gathers dust unless the government actively chooses to implement it, effectively rendering them toothless tigers in the face of urgent issues like online scams. This structural weakness is compounded by operational apathy; despite statutory mandates, meetings are notoriously irregular, often failing to meet even the minimum annual requirements, which prevents any real momentum or consensus building.

Furthermore, the landscape has become crowded and confusing. With the arrival of the CCPA and existing bodies like the ASCI, the CPCs often suffer from an "identity crisis," risking redundancy as their recommendations on things like misleading ads overlap with agencies that actually have the power to act. These issues are exacerbated at the grassroots level, where District and State Councils frequently operate without dedicated budgets, technical expertise, or data analytics capabilities, leaving them ill-equipped to handle complex digital-era problems. Ultimately, without binding power, consistent engagement, or modern tools, CPCs risk becoming ceremonial bodies rather than the robust policy shapers they were meant to be.

 

V.     REFORMS & RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Integration of digital ecosystem and leveraging data analytics

To transform the Consumer Protection Councils from advisory-only bodies that only at best act as vigilant recordkeeping into proactive guardians of consumer rights, a fundamental structural and operational overhaul is required that aligns with their pith and substance making mandate with 21st century realities. Central to this essential overhaul could be the deep integration of digital grievance redressal and data analytics. Rather than operating in a vacuum, CPCs must be digitally linked to platforms like e-Daakhil and the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s (CCPA) databases. By routinely accessing dashboard data on complaint volumes distinguishing, for instance, between "e-commerce disputes" and "misleading advertisements" Councils can shift from the century old concept of working groups to data driven policymaking.

This analytical approach should be institutionalized by training Council secretariats in data science or partnering with academic institutions to publish periodic "Consumer Protection Outlook" reports. Furthermore, Councils must actively champion the e-Daakhil portal, organizing digital literacy camps to ensure rural consumers are not left behind, effectively bridging the digital divide in access to justice.

2. Grassroot Centric Approach

Operationally, the federal structure of consumer protection must be strengthened through robust intergovernmental coordination and specialized Non-Governmental Organisations and groups working on grassroot level to identify consumer redressal on a more micro level. The Act’s multitier model offers a unique opportunity to create a cohesive national strategy; this can be realized through formal plenary sessions where State and District Councils present annual reports to the Central Council, sharing best practices on tackling local unfair trade practices.

Crucially, the Central Council must synchronize its advisory role with the CCPA's investigative powers reviewing draft guidelines on sectoral issues to ensure a harmonized regulatory approach. To tackle complex, emerging threats like "dark patterns" or "fintech fraud," Councils should aggressively utilize their statutory power under the 2020 Rules^[39] to constitute ad-hoc Working Groups. Comprising subject-matter experts, these groups can then act as rapid-response think tanks, submitting focused reports that help build concrete legislative policy at the central level. To ensure these bodies remain active despite geographic constraints, the adoption of hybrid meeting models and video conferencing has proven effective in various courts since the Covid 19^[40] pandemic should be standardized to improve attendance and reduce costs.

3. Accountability Monitoring

Finally, the legitimacy and impact of the Councils depend on strengthened representation and accountability. The "non-official" member slots must be rigorously filled with genuine grassroots advocates, IT analysts, law scholars and e-commerce experts rather than representatives of companies, ensuring that diverse and independent viewpoints shape the agenda. This internal strengthening must be matched by external transparency; Councils should release public releases summarizing their recommendations to build trust and awareness.

Most importantly, to cure the toothless nature of advisory bodies, a mechanism for incentivized action is essential. A formal "Action Taken Report" protocol should be introduced, requiring Ministries or regulators to respond to Council recommendations within a fixed timeframe. By mandating that the government provide a rationale for rejecting any advice this will establish a robust culture of answerability, ensuring that Council deliberations are treated not as optional suggestions, but as authoritative inputs for national policy.

VI.     CONCLUSION

The CPCs created under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019^[41] furthers two important promises as given by the Indian Constitution: to provide a structured, multi-stakeholder forum for advancing consumer rights through policy advice, education, and awareness and second judicial interpretation of the Act from time to time by the Supreme Court and various High Courts to deepen and expand the consumer welfare jurisprudence. Yet, the councils themselves remain advisory, operating without enforcement authority, limited by irregular meetings, inconsistent follow-through, and inadequate technological capacity factors that undermine their ability to respond to rapidly evolving digital markets and emerging unfair trade practices.

For CPCs to fulfil their legislative purpose and offer meaningful policy guidance to governments, reforms must move beyond form to function. Integrating real-time grievance data, enabling hybrid meetings, activating expert-led working groups, and institutionalising accountability through mandatory government responses would convert CPCs into evidence driven advisory engines rather than symbolic bodies.

Strengthened in this manner, CPCs can serve as a credible policy bridge between regulators, industry, and the consumer class supporting fair markets while enabling corporate stakeholders to operate within a predictable, transparent, and consumer-aligned compliance framework.

*The author is Vaibhav Bhardwaj, a law student at Vivekanand Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS), GGSIPU . Views expressed are personal.