{"id":347089,"date":"2025-05-03T16:00:08","date_gmt":"2025-05-03T10:30:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=347089"},"modified":"2025-05-06T15:23:54","modified_gmt":"2025-05-06T09:53:54","slug":"sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> While considering the instant petition concerning challenge to the constitutionality of Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214240\" target=\"_blank\">34(1)<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214254\" target=\"_blank\">47(1)(a)(i)<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214266\" target=\"_blank\">58(1)(a)(i)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214317\" target=\"_blank\">Consumer Protection Act, 2019<\/a> for being violative of Article 14 for prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the district, state and national commissions on the basis of value of goods and services paid as consideration, instead of compensation claimed; the Division Bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">P.S. Narasimha*<\/span> and Manoj Misra, JJ., dismissed the challenge and declared that the said provisions are constitutional and neither violative of Article 14, nor manifestly arbitrary.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further held that Central Consumer Protection Council and the Central Consumer Protection Authority shall 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 such measures as may be necessary for effective and efficient redressal and working of the statute.<\/p>\n<h3>Background and Legal Trajectory:<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The petitioner&#8217;s husband purchased a sedan &#8212;Ford Endeavour Titanium car from S.P. Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., authorised dealer of Ford India for an amount of Rs. 31.19 Lakhs. Tragically, the vehicle caught fire on 20-11-2018 while being driven leading to death of petitioner&#8217;s husband. The petitioner initiated criminal and statutory proceedings under CP Act by way of consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission, Vadodara for compensation of Rs. 51.49 crores with interest.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Pending disposal of the consumer complaint, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of the present writ petition under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> alleging that she was compelled to approach the District Commission because of the statutory regime under the 2019 Act; whereas under the repealed <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726966\" target=\"_blank\">Consumer Protection Act, 1986<\/a>, she could have directly approached the National Commission (NCDRC) based on compensation claimed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the clubbed civil appeal, the appellant&#8217;s husband, a District governor of the Lions Club of Jhansi, passed away due to COVID-19 on 25-07-2020. When her claim on the basis of insurance policy offered by Lions International Club, up to two million dollars as compensation to families of deceased members was denied, she approached the National Commission seeking Rs. 14.94 crore. However, the National Commission rejected her petition on the ground that the consideration for the insurance policy does not exceed Rs.10 crores.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Counsels for the petitioner and appellant contended that under the new legal regime, an anomaly has arisen regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and hierarchy of judicial system.<\/p>\n<h3>Court&#8217;s Assessment and Findings:<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Perusing the facts in the writ petition and the appeal the Court determined that issued can be considered in the context of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">(i)<\/span> power to determine pecuniary jurisdiction, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">(ii)<\/span> reasonable classification under Article 14, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">(iii)<\/span> manifest arbitrariness, and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">(iv)<\/span> loss of remedy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Vis-a-vis the power to determine pecuniary jurisdiction, the Court stated that Parliament has the legislative competence to prescribe jurisdiction and powers of courts. This power extends to prescribing different monetary values as the basis for exercising jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Regarding submissions that the impugned provisions of the CP Act are discriminatory and violative of Article 14, the Court pointed out that Sections 34, 47 and 58 vest jurisdictions in the district, state and national commission on the basis of value of goods or services paid as consideration. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">The precise question that requires consideration<\/span> is whether empowering the district, state and national commissions to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of value of the goods or services paid as consideration is violative of Article 14.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Relying on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/0SB65U25\" target=\"_blank\">(1952) 1 SCC 1<\/a>, the Court pointed out that if there is one test for determining whether a provision of &#8216;law&#8217; is violative of the equality norm, which has been articulated with precision and clarity, it is the independent and interconnecting twin test i.e., the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia<\/span> which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and that that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">differentia must have a rational relation<\/span> to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court explained that Classification based on value of goods or services on the basis of the amount paid as consideration is valid. &#8220;Consideration&#8221; is an integral part of forming any contract. It is also an integral part of the definition of a &#8216;consumer&#8217;. The Court further explained that it is in recognition of the first principles of formation of a contract that Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214224\" target=\"_blank\">2(7)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214317\" target=\"_blank\">CP Act<\/a> defines a consumer as any person who buys any goods or hires or avails any service for a consideration. The consideration could be in the present or future, in whole, part, or by deferred payment. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Whichever be the mode, there must be a consideration. That is essential to be a consumer<\/span>. Therefore, vesting jurisdiction in the District, State or National Commission on the basis of value of goods or services paid as &#8216;consideration&#8217;, is neither illegal nor discriminatory. Elaborating further, the Court stated that this classification also has a direct nexus to the object sought to be achieved. It is thus not a suspect classification. Value of consideration paid for good or service purchased is closer and more easily relatable to compensation than the self-assessed claim for damages of a consumer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;It is clear that the determination of jurisdiction of the district, state or national commissions on the basis of value of consideration paid for purchase of goods and services has a rational nexus to the object of provisioning hierarchy of judicial remedies&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further stated that there has been no loss of judicial remedy because of Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214240\" target=\"_blank\">34<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214254\" target=\"_blank\">47<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214266\" target=\"_blank\">58<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214317\" target=\"_blank\">CP Act<\/a>. The relief or compensation that a consumer could claim remained unrestricted and at the same time, access to the state or the national commission is also not taken away. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">It is well settled that there is no right or a privilege of a consumer to raise an unlimited claim of compensation<\/span> and thereby chose a forum of his choice for instituting a complaint.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Therefore, the Court held that there is no unrestricted claim for compensation and that it is subject to the determination of the court; and that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">classification of claims based on value of goods and services paid as consideration has a direct nexus to the object of creating a hierarchical structure of judicial remedies through tribunals<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Vis-a-vis performance audit of the statute, the Court stated that reviewing and assessing the implementation of a statute is an integral part of Rule of Law. It is in recognition of this obligation of the executive government that the constitutional courts have directed governments to carry performance audit of statutes.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the context of conducting performance audit of a statute, the Court recognised the constitution and establishment of two statutory bodies- the Central Consumer Protection Council (Council) under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214235\" target=\"_blank\">3<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214317\" target=\"_blank\">CP Act<\/a> and Central Consumer Protection Authority (Authority) under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214206\" target=\"_blank\">10<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000214317\" target=\"_blank\">CP Act<\/a>. The Court pointed out that purpose and object of constituting these authorities is clearly reflected in the Preamble of the CP Act. The <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">purpose and object behind referring to the constitution and functioning of the Council and the Authority is only to ensure that the regulatory regime for consumer protection is clearly identified, coordinated<\/span> &#8212; if not centralised and declared to be duty bearers for effective functioning of the consumer protection regime.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;The power of judicial review in matters concerning implementation of policy objectives should transcend the standard power of judicial review to issue writs to perform statutory duty and proceed to examine whether the duty bearers, the authorities and bodies are constituted properly and also whether they are functioning effectively and efficiently&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Therefore, the Court declared that the Council and Authority being statutory authorities having clear purpose and objects and vested with powers and functions must act effectively and in complete coordination to achieve the preambular object of the statute to protect the interest of consumers. As they are impressed with statutory duty, their functioning will be subject to judicial review. Vibrant functioning of the Council and the Authority will subserve the purpose and object of the Parliament enacting the 2019 legislation.<\/p>\n<p><!--\n\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Rutu Mihir Panchal v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 282 OF 2021, decided on 29-4-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment by Justice P.S. Narasimha<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<hr\/>\n\n\n\n\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Petitioner(s):<\/span> Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR Mr. Shreeyash Lalit, Adv. Mrs. Saroj Raichura, Adv. Mr. Kalp Raichura, Adv. Mr. Rajat Vats, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Somesh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Utsav Saxena, Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Adv. Ms. Aashna Mehra, Adv. Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Respondent(s):<\/span> Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. A. Deb Kuamar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR<\/p>\n\n--><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-overflow: ellipsis; background-color: #92A8D1; text-align:justify; clear:both; text-size-adjust: auto; overflow: auto;\">\n<p style=\"font-size: 18pt; margin-top: 5px; text-align: center;\">CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n<table width=\"100%\" style=\"word-wrap: break-word; border-collapse:collapse; table-layout: fixed; margin-top: 10px;\">\n<colgroup>\n<col width=\"41%\"\/>\n<col width=\"59%\"\/>\n<\/colgroup>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\">\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Citation:<\/span><br \/> <span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-size: 10pt;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/13U30LF1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2025 SCC OnLine SC 974<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Appellants&#160;:<\/span><br \/> Rutu Mihir Panchal<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Respondents&#160;:<\/span><br \/> Union of India<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\">\n<p style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Advocates who appeared in this case<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">For Petitioner(s):<\/span><br \/> Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR Mr. Shreeyash Lalit, Adv. Mrs. Saroj Raichura, Adv. Mr. Kalp Raichura, Adv. Mr. Rajat Vats, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Somesh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Utsav Saxena, Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Adv. Ms. Aashna Mehra, Adv. Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">For Respondent(s):<\/span><br \/> Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. A. Deb Kuamar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"font-size: 12pt; margin-top: -20px; margin-left: 5px;\"><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">CORAM&#160;:<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"banner\" style=\"overflow: hidden; display: flex; justify-content: space-between; padding-left: 3%;\">\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;\">\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/03\/know-thy-judge-ps-narasimha-career-life-judgments-supreme-court-legal-news-updates\/\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" height=\"100px\" width=\"100px\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/33.-Narasimha-modified.png\" alt=\"P.S. Narasimha, J.\" style=\"border-radius: 50%; border:2px solid #FF5733; padding: 1px;\"><br \/><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">P.S. Narasimha, J.<\/span><\/img><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;\">\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" height=\"100px\" width=\"100px\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Manoj-Misra-Circle.png\" alt=\"Manoj Misra, J.\" style=\"border-radius: 50%;\"><br \/><span style=\"color: black !important;\">Manoj Misra, J.<\/span><\/img><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h3 style=\"color: #000080;\">Buy Constitution of India &nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition?products_id=100647\" target=\"_blank\">HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition?products_id=100647\" target=\"_blank\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/ebcwebstore\/images\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition-Gopal-Sankaranarayanan-ebc-front-cover.JPG\" alt=\"Constitution of India\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-294438\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Central Consumer Protection Council and the Central Consumer Protection Authority shall in exercise of their statutory duties take such measures as may be necessary for survey, review and advise the government about such measures necessary for effective and efficient redressal and working of the statute&#8221;.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":347092,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[32557,42625,32507,50140,11241,81673,49322,30271],"class_list":["post-347089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-arbitrariness","tag-central-consumer-protection-authority","tag-central-consumer-protection-council","tag-consumer-courts","tag-consumer-protection","tag-judicial-remedies","tag-justice-ps-narasimha","tag-pecuniary-jurisdiction"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Explained | SC decision on constitutionality of Ss. 34, 47 and 58 of CP Act, 2019<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-05-03T10:30:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-05-06T09:53:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Ss-34-47-and-58-Consumer-Protection-Act-2019.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Explained | SC decision on constitutionality of Ss. 34, 47 and 58 of CP Act, 2019\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Ss-34-47-and-58-Consumer-Protection-Act-2019.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-05-03T10:30:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-05-06T09:53:54+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Ss-34-47-and-58-Consumer-Protection-Act-2019.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Ss-34-47-and-58-Consumer-Protection-Act-2019.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Ss 34 47 and 58 Consumer Protection Act 2019\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Explained | SC decision on constitutionality of Ss. 34, 47 and 58 of CP Act, 2019","description":"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC","og_description":"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-05-03T10:30:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-05-06T09:53:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Ss-34-47-and-58-Consumer-Protection-Act-2019.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/","name":"Explained | SC decision on constitutionality of Ss. 34, 47 and 58 of CP Act, 2019","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Ss-34-47-and-58-Consumer-Protection-Act-2019.webp","datePublished":"2025-05-03T10:30:08+00:00","dateModified":"2025-05-06T09:53:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Ss-34-47-and-58-Consumer-Protection-Act-2019.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Ss-34-47-and-58-Consumer-Protection-Act-2019.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Ss 34 47 and 58 Consumer Protection Act 2019"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/03\/sc-decision-constitutionality-consumer-protection-act-sections-explained-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 neither violative of Art. 14 nor manifestly arbitrary: SC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Ss-34-47-and-58-Consumer-Protection-Act-2019.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":245713,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/17\/proceedings-instituted-under-consumer-protection-act-1986-not-to-be-transferred-to-fora-created-under-2019-act-with-newly-prescribed-pecuniary-limits-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":347089,"position":0},"title":"Proceedings instituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 not to be transferred to fora created under 2019 Act with newly prescribed pecuniary limits: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\"One can imagine the serious hardship that would be caused to the consumers, if cases which have been already instituted before the NCDRC were required to be transferred to the SCDRCs as a result of the alteration of pecuniary limits by the Act of 2019.\"","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235380,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/05\/ncdrc-to-determine-pecuniary-jurisdiction-of-district-commission-state-commission-or-national-commission-which-value-of-goods-or-services-has-to-be-considered-commission-elaborates\/","url_meta":{"origin":347089,"position":1},"title":"NCDRC | To determine pecuniary jurisdiction of District, State or National Commission which value of goods or services has to be considered? Commission elaborates","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 5, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):\u00a0A Division Bench of R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member), held that \"...for detrmining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247260,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/17\/consumer-protection-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":347089,"position":2},"title":"NCDRC | Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for hierarchy of Consumer Fora to deal with consumer complaints, depending upon pecuniary value of complaint; Complaint filed to demand disproportionate compensation only to inflate value of complaint &#8212; Dismissed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) while addressing the complaint reiterated the settled position of law, expressed that, Section 58 of the Act provides that the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint where value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286539,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/07\/supreme-court-affirms-order-of-bombay-high-court-and-supports-lawyers-with-10-years-experience-to-be-considered-for-consumer-commission-appointment-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":347089,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court affirms the order of the Bombay High Court supporting lawyers with 10 years\u2019 experience to be considered for Consumer Commission appointment","author":"Editor","date":"March 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIn absence of transparency in the matter of appointments of President and Members and in absence of any criteria on merits the undeserving and unqualified persons may get appointment which may frustrate the object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act\u201d, observed the Bench.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":232407,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/17\/substantial-portion-of-consumer-protection-act-2019-along-with-related-rules-to-come-into-force-on-20th-july-2020\/","url_meta":{"origin":347089,"position":4},"title":"Substantial portion of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 along with related Rules to come into force on 20th July, 2020","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The Central Government has appointed 20 July 2020, as the date on which certain provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 shall come into force. The Central Government has exercised the powers conferred by Section 1(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Following is a list of provisions that will\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legislation Updates&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Consumer-Protection.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Consumer-Protection.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Consumer-Protection.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Consumer-Protection.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Consumer-Protection.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":364205,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/fssai-bans-use-of-ors-in-food-product-labelling\/","url_meta":{"origin":347089,"position":5},"title":"FSSAI Cracks Down on Misleading &#8220;ORS&#8221; Branding in Food Industry","author":"Shubhi","date":"October 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"FSSAI prohibited the use of the term \u201cORS\u201d in food product branding, labelling, and naming, citing consumer deception and violations of food safety regulations.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legislation Updates&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Use of ORS in Food Product","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Use-of-ORS-in-Food-Product.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Use-of-ORS-in-Food-Product.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Use-of-ORS-in-Food-Product.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Use-of-ORS-in-Food-Product.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/347089","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=347089"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/347089\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/347092"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=347089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=347089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=347089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}