The Delhi High Court made it clear: no more excuses, no institutional drift. The government must follow orders — not wait for them.
On Wednesday, amid growing concern over a looming leadership vacuum in Delhi’s consumer commissions, the High Court was told that current office-bearers — including presidents, presiding officers, and members — will stay on until fresh appointments arrive. A sigh of relief, at least for now, echoed through the halls where nearly 7,000 cases await resolution.
The issue reached the court through a public interest petition by former MLA Sardar RP Singh, who warned that 19 consumer forum officials are due to retire imminently. Without them, Delhi’s consumer redressal machinery would grind to a halt. Chief among those set to retire was Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President of the State Commission, scheduled to exit on May 29 — already relieved of duty.
The petitioner pointed to a recent Supreme Court judgment that serves as the anchor in this unfolding situation. The apex court had stated unambiguously: current functionaries must continue till replacements arrive. No room for bureaucratic foot-dragging.
Initially, the Delhi government’s lawyer wanted the High Court to formalize the extension through an order. That didn’t sit well with the Bench. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela weren’t interested in doing the government’s job for it.
“We are not going to give any directions,” the judges said curtly. “It’s not our job. It’s your job, and you’re failing to do it.”
Their message was sharp: comply with the Supreme Court ruling or face the consequences. The Bench refused to babysit an administration that had already been told what to do.
“We are not going to have any headless institution in this state, at least. Not in Delhi,” the Court declared.
After a brief pause in proceedings, the government’s counsel returned with instructions: the Centre will honor the Supreme Court’s mandate. A formal commitment was recorded.
The petition also highlighted an unanswered representation made to the Delhi government on May 23, seeking the extension of retiring officials. As of the court hearing, no reply had been received.
With the government now bound to keep consumer justice running without disruption, the court closed the matter. The PIL was disposed of, but the warning remains etched in the record: institutional leadership cannot be left to the mercy of administrative delays.
Appearing for the petitioner were senior advocates and a battery of lawyers — all pushing back against the possibility of silence where resolution is owed.