There may be a significant jump in the number of cases being filed before the consumer courts, but there is also an increase in the number of complaints filed against the consumer courts themselves.

Those who sit in judgement over complaints should not only be persons of integrity, but should also seem to be so. In fact their orders clearly show up the person for what he or she is. In many cases, the orders have shown that consumer court members too could be susceptible to temptations. And when cases involve large corporations whose reputations are at stake, the temptations could well be irresistible.

Corruption in the consumer courts, however small the percentage, does not augur well for the consumer justice system. However, one can take solace in the fact that consumers have begun to complain. This has got the government as well as the apex consumer court thinking about ways and means of cleansing the consumer courts of corrupt and inefficient members and presidents.

In August last year, at a conference held to discuss the functioning of consumer courts, the president of the apex consumer court, Justice M.B. Shah came out quite strongly on the issue. He suggested a two-pronged strategy. If the complaints were against the members or the president of the district forum or the members of the state commission, then the president of the state commission can hold an inquiry and if the allegations were proved, recommend his removal to the state government. However, if the complaint is against the president of the state commission, a similar procedure would be followed by the National Commission, Justice Shah said.

However, this is easier said than done. In many cases, proving charges of corruption may be difficult. So Justice Shah has suggested that there should also be a review of the work of members and presidents once in two years and those whose work is not up to the mark, or those who are guilty of misconduct, should be removed from service.

The second suggestion could very effectively rid the consumer courts of members and presidents guilty of misconduct, provided the apex consumer court formulates a set of standards against which the work of members and presidents is measured. Such a review should be done by an independent and impartial group appointed for the purpose. That would automatically instill the fear of the law in those who are unworthy of the post that they hold as adjudicators of consumer disputes.