Hyderabad: A first-of-its-kind study, the Consumer Justice Report 2026: Assessing Capacity of Redressal Commissions in India, by the India Justice Report (IJR) released today, ranks Telangana last among the 19 Large and Mid-sized states (with populations of over one crore each). Andhra Pradesh secured the top rank followed by Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka and West Bengal comprising the top five states.
Some encouraging trends[1]:
● No shortfall in members at the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC), among the only 4 states to have 0% vacancy among SCDRC members.
● Achieved 100% case clearance rate in the period 2020-2024
Where improvements can be made:
● As of 2025, there was no President in the State Commission, and 25% vacancy among Presidents in the District Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC)
● Only 12 district commissions present across the 33 districts in the state, far from the mandate of establishing at least one dedicated Dispute Redressal Commission in every district
● On average, nearly 1000 days required to dispose a case at the State Commission, nearly 6 times the stipulated time
Among the nine small states (with populations less than one crore each), Meghalaya ranked first, followed by Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh.
Drawing primarily on public data obtained through Right to Information inquiries and parliamentary responses, the study evaluates state performance through the filters of budgets, infrastructure, human resources, workload and diversity to rank how well states have equipped themselves to fulfill the statutory obligations under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Consumer Commissions Jurisdictions
Based on the 2021 rules[2], each tier has a pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaints of a specified monetary value.
● District Commissions – jurisdiction to entertain complaints where value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed 50 lakh rupees.
● State Commissions – jurisdiction to entertain complaints where value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds 50 lakh rupees but does not exceed 2 crore rupees.
● National Commission – jurisdiction to entertain complaints where value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds 2 crore rupees.
Time Period Analysis of Consumer Cases
IJR’s analysis of cases filed and disposed between 2010 and 2024 (15 years) as available on the official portal Confonet[3] (now e-jagriti) by IJR reveals that:
Nearly 11.7 thousand cases were filed before Telangana SCDRC in this period. Of these, 66% were ‘first appeals’ – a legal remedy available to a party not satisfied with the decision passed by the district commission – and just 19% were consumer cases filed with original jurisdiction.
1 in every 4 cases filed with the SCDRC related to the housing sector. The other top sectors were Insurance (21%) and Agriculture (15%). The ‘others’ category – an unspecified category used on the e-jagriti portal accounted for 20% of cases filed.
74% of cases filed in this period took more than a year to dispose of. On average, Telangana’s SCDRC took 974 days to dispose of a case, far from the stipulated time of 90-150 days.
61% of cases filed in the state’s DCDRCs took more than a year for disposal with 44% taking more than 20 hearings. The average case disposal time for Telangana’s DCDRCs’ is 669 days.
The ranking of states is below:
| 19 Large and mid-sized states: | 9 Small states: | |||
| State | Consumer Justice Rank | State | Consumer Justice Rank | |
| Andhra Pradesh | 1 | Meghalaya | 1 | |
| Madhya Pradesh | 2 | Sikkim | 2 | |
| Rajasthan | 3 | Himachal Pradesh | 3 | |
| Karnataka | 4 | Goa | 4 | |
| West Bengal | 5 | Nagaland | 5 | |
| Haryana | 6 | Mizoram | 6 | |
| Tamil Nadu | 7 | Tripura | 7 | |
| Assam | 8 | Arunachal Pradesh | 8 | |
| Uttarakhand | 9 | Manipur | 9 | |
| Uttar Pradesh | 10 | |||
| Maharashtra | 11 | |||
| Kerala | 12 | |||
| Bihar | 13 | |||
| Gujarat | 14 | |||
| Punjab | 15 | |||
| Odisha | 16 | |||
| Chhattisgarh | 17 | |||
| Jharkhand | 18 | |||
| Telangana | 19 | |||
Justice (Retd.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India released the report and said, “the will of the Parliament is reflected in a legislation but if the legislation is made non-functional then will is also defeated. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was expected to improve consumer protection capacity in the country. But it is concerning to find that more than half the president and member positions in state commissions are vacant and not all districts have formed district commissions. This has persisted despite multiple court orders including during my tenure when we had taken suo motu cognisance of capacity gaps. These significant gaps affect the consumer protection institutional structure and the access to speedy and effective redressal. Furthermore, it erodes the confidence of consumers in grievance redressal in the consumer commissions”.
Justice (retd.) Madan B Lokur said, “the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficent legislation at the centre of which is the ordinary consumer. The report clearly shows that the system is working at subsistence level, with vacancies as high as 40% in State Commissions. One in three cases is pending over three years. It is time the authorities realise that consumption and economic growth is severely affected by the lack of faith in consumer redressal mechanisms. Forty years after the Consumer Protection legislation Act was enacted the situation is terribly grim. It raises the question: Are these commissions really grievance redressal bodies? “
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. Data accessed through RTI show the gaps and neglect in filling leadership vacancies in commissions which undermines the spirit of the consumer protection mandate and leads to ineffective grievance redressal. 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.