S B Tripathi vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 24.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 6355/2025
S B TRIPATHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.B. Tripathi, Advocate
(Petitioner-in-person).
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC with Ms.
Shruti Goel, Advocate for UoI.
Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms. Priyanka
Jindal, Advocates for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (“ PIL ”) for
issuance of directions for resuming the video conference hearing and to
provide water facilities in all ten District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commissions at Delhi (“ District Commissions ”).
2. The Petitioner is a practising advocate in Delhi since 1991 and has
stated that the present Petition has been filed for the benefit of public and
advocates, who attend cases before the District Commissions in Delhi.
3. According to the Petitioner, in all the ten District Commissions in
Delhi, the hearing through video conferencing mode was available during the
COVID-19 pandemic, however, the said facility has been discontinued after
the pandemic was over. He has further submitted that there is a hybrid mode

W.P.(C) 6355/2025 Page 1 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.03.2026
19:26:30

of hearing in all the District Courts in Delhi, State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (“ State Commission ”) at Delhi, this Court and even
the Supreme Court, however, the hearing through video conference mode has
been stopped in all the ten District Commissions in Delhi. He has further
submitted that as all ten District Commissions, Delhi are located at far away
places, it is not possible for the advocates to attend all cases, if they are listed
in several Commissions. If the video conference facility is resumed in all ten
District Commissions in Delhi, it will be convenient for the advocates and
also public at large as there is no reason for discontinuing the same.
4. The Petitioner has also sought directions for increasing the sanctioned
strength of the staff in the District Commissions and the State Commission
particularly, the support staff. The Petitioner has submitted that there is an
acute shortage of support staff in the District Commissions and the State
Commission as the sanctioned strength of staff was granted way back in the
year 1986 when the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted and since
then cases in the various District Commissions have increased manifold and
the existing support staff is not in a position to cope up with the workload.
5. The Petitioner also filed a PIL being W.P.(C) 10460/2023 on the issue
of shortage of the support staff in the District Commissions. This Court vide
order dated 14.08.2023 observed as under:
“1. The consumer forums play a pivotal role in safeguarding the
rights and interests of consumers. Efficient functioning of these
forums is imperative in upholding the very essence of consumer
protection. The present Public Interest Litigation seeks redressal for
administrative hurdles stemming from an acute staff shortage being
encountered by the Delhi District Consumers Dispute Redressal
Forum-VII, South West District, Delhi [‘CRDF-VII’]. The order sheet
dated 05th July, 2023 in Complaint Case No. 149/20231 highlights
these difficulties, revealing the absence of even a singular LDC/

W.P.(C) 6355/2025 Page 2 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.03.2026
19:26:30

Junior Assistant, in CRDF-VII, thereby highlighting the immediate
requirement for bolstering the support staff to ensure efficient
delivery of justice.
2. Considering the above, the Department of Food, Supplies &
Consumer Affairs of the GNCTD is hereby directed to ensure that an
adequate number of support staff is swiftly appointed in all District
and State Commissions within a span of thirty days from today. Mr.
Satyakam, the learned ASC for GNCTD, has given assurances to this
Court regarding the submission of a comprehensive chart within the
aforementioned 30-day period. This chart must also enumerate
particulars of recruitment initiated post 05th July, 2023, detailing
postings of support staff across 10 District Commissions and the State
Commission. Furthermore, a comparison of current versus
sanctioned support staff strength should be depicted.
3. The Court acknowledges that the Department of Food Supplies and
Consumer Affairs [‘DOFSCA’] has previously received various
proposals from the State Commission and 10 District Commissions,
advocating the creation of 82 auxiliary posts for support staff.
Pursuant to this, DOFSCA, in its commitment to efficient staffing,
sought additional clarifications from the State and District
Commissions to forward the proposal to the Administrative Reforms
Department, the chief department responsible for the creation of
posts. Disappointingly, information from four District Forums
remains pending.
4. It has also come to Court's attention that, despite reminders
dispatched to these District Commissions, there has been a
lackadaisical approach in furnishing the required data, causing an
unnecessary impediment in the post creation process. The Court,
emphasizing the utmost necessity for supporting staff in these
consumer forums, mandates the four defaulting District Forums-
North-West, North-East, South-West, and East, to expeditiously
provide the necessary data to DOFSCA within a strict timeframe of
thirty days. Subsequent to this, the State Government is directed to
take a decision within the succeeding thirty days, taking into account
the needs of both the State and District Commissions.
5. Re-notify on 06th October, 2023 for further consideration.”

6. As the above order was not complied for almost two years, the
Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition being CONT.CAS(C) 1394/2024,
wherein this Court vide order dated 02.04.2025 observed as under:

W.P.(C) 6355/2025 Page 3 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.03.2026
19:26:30

“8. It is directed that respondent no.3 shall file a tabulation on the
vacant posts with respect to each of the Districts, where District
Commissions are located, that existed at the time of the filing of the
petition and which exists as of today, as per the category of the
particular posts.

9. It shall also indicate as to what is holding back respondent no.3
from filling up of these vacancies which are clearly impeding the
proper function of these Consumer Forums.”

7. Vide order dated 14.05.2025, Respondent No. 2 was directed to file an
Affidavit and Reply to this Petition. Accordingly, a short Affidavit dated
05.01.2026 filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
8. During the pendency of this Petition, the Petitioner filed an Application
being C.M. APPL. 66936/2025 seeking direction to grant approval to a
proposal dated 27.06.2025 by the State Commission for procuring
infrastructure / equipment for virtual hearing / video conferencing in the
District Commissions. Vide order dated 29.10.2025, the said Application was
disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 4 / Delhi State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission to provide timelines within which the
District Commissions shall be equipped with a video conferencing facility.
9. The Petitioner has filed another C.M. APPL. 82163/2025 seeking
direction to fill vacancies of 11 posts in the State Commission and 37 posts in
the District Commissions. Vide order dated 24.12.2025, the Respondents were
directed to file Reply to the said Application. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2
/ Government of NCT of Delhi filed Reply dated 05.01.2026 stating that the
issue with regard to the vacancy in the State Commission and District
Commissions is already pending before this Court as part of W.P.(C)
10460/2023 and CONT.CAS(C) 1394/2024 filed by the Petitioner, which
being reagitated despite the pendency of the same before this Court. The

W.P.(C) 6355/2025 Page 4 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.03.2026
19:26:30

Reply filed by Respondent No. 2 has stated that the posts of support staff have
been duly sanctioned from time to time and the substantial manpower is
physically available and functioning in the State Commission and the District
Commissions. It is also submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that the
figures of vacancy stated by the Petitioner do not reflect the actual vacancy as
the staff posted in the State Commission and District Commissions are
working in diverted capacity from other departments and are drawing salary
therefrom. Further, some of the staff have also been hired contractually from
outsourced agencies and administrative steps are being undertaken including
for sanctioning the posts, deployment of manpower, provision of
infrastructure and release of funds. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 has prayed
for dismissal of C.M. 82163/2025 as not being maintainable.
10. The Petitioner has handed over the Objections dated 18.01.2026 to the
Short Affidavit dated 05.01.2026 filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 / State
Commission in Court, which is taken on record. As per the said Objections,
out of ten District Commissions, video conferencing is functional in only four
District Commissions. In support of the same, the Petitioner has annexed copy
of the first page of the cause list dated 19.01.2026 of all the ten District
Commissions. The Petitioner has also annexed a copy of the Reply to RTI
application dated 27.09.2025 received from the State Commission, which
states that the State Commission had submitted a proposal dated 27.06.2025
to Respondent No. 2 for procuring the infrastructure / equipment for virtual
hearing / video conferencing in ten District Commissions.
11. We have considered the submissions made by the Petitioner-in-person.
12. As regards the issue of increasing the sanctioned strength of the staff in
the District Commissions and the State Commission, the same is pending

W.P.(C) 6355/2025 Page 5 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.03.2026
19:26:30

consideration of this Court in the previous PIL and the Contempt Petition filed
by the Petitioner. Hence, no orders are required to be passed in this Petition
regarding the increase in the sanctioned strength of staff in the District
Commissions and the State Commission.
13. The proposal dated 27.06.2025 submitted by the State Commission was
already subject matter of C.M. APPL. 66936/2025, which has been disposed
of vide Order dated 29.10.2025 directing Respondent No. 4 / State
Commission to provide the timelines within which the District Commissions
shall be equipped with the video conferencing facility.
14. The cause lists annexed along with the Objections filed by the
Petitioner show that four out of ten District Commissions are already using
the facility of video conferencing for hearings. As regards the video
conferencing facility to be made available in the remaining six District
Commissions, it is directed that the Respondents shall take steps to ensure that
the video conferencing facility for hybrid hearings is made functional in all
the remaining six District Commissions i.e. West District, New Delhi District,
North-West District, Central District, East District and South District and the
daily cause list being published by all ten District Commissions shall provide
the link for video conferencing within a period of eight weeks.
15. The present Petition along with all pending Applications stand disposed
of with the aforesaid directions.

TEJAS KARIA, J


DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

FEBRUARY 24, 2026 / ‘A’

W.P.(C) 6355/2025 Page 6 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.03.2026
19:26:30