Keralam’s consumer dispute redressal system is grappling with a mounting backlog, with 26,668 cases pending before the State and district consumer commissions, according to a status report submitted by the amicus curiae before the Supreme Court.

 The report, filed recently in connection with a suo moto case concerning vacancies and inadequate infrastructure in consumer commissions in each State, reveals that the backlog before Keralam’s district commissions has surged by nearly 76% since December 2023, and was nearly twice that of Karnataka and more than six times that of Tamil Nadu.

Of the total pending cases in Keralam, 22,270 were before district consumer commissions and 4,398 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as of July 31.

The backlog before the district commissions rose from 12,691 at the end of 2023 to 16,877 in December 2024 and 20,437 in December 2025, before reaching 22,270 in July this year. During the first seven months of 2026, the district commissions received 6,016 cases but disposed of only 3,931.

Reduction this year

Meanwhile, the State commission reported a reduction in its backlog from 4,505 cases at the end of 2025 to 4,398 by July 31, 2026. It disposed of 675 cases against 571 fresh filings within seven months this year.

The report also reveals that one of the cases pending before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dates back to December 11, 1995, making it one of the oldest pending consumer disputes in the country. Maharashtra reported a case dating back to July 6, 1994.  

According to the report, one district commission in the State has a case dating back to the 1990-2000 period, while six district commissions have cases filed between 2001 and 2010 among their oldest pending matters.

The report also highlights that two of the four sanctioned vacancies in the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission remain unfilled.

Women’s representation

The findings also raise concerns about women’s representation in the State commission. Citing the Consumer Justice Report, 2026, the amicus curiae observed that Keralam was among three States that did not have even one woman serving as a member or president, in violation of Rule 3(3) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020.

The report also identified Keralam among the States where video-conferencing facilities were unavailable in district consumer commissions. It observed that such facilities were either unavailable or not meaningfully utilised in most district commissions across the country.

At the State commission level, however, Keralam reported 5,180 cases heard through video-conferencing between January and July 2026.