29 December,2025 06:36 PM IST | Mumbai | mid-day online correspondent
The commission said grievances against a court’s registry should be addressed within the judicial system itself. Representational pic
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (South Mumbai) has dismissed a law student's complaint against the registrar of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court, ruling that judicial administrative functions do not fall under the ambit of "commercial services," news agency PTI reported.
The commission noted that the court does not operate as a commercial enterprise to supply certified copies for profit.
"It administers justice and maintains court records," the panel asserted.
The 27-year-old law graduate had filed the complaint in 2018, alleging "deficiency in service" after the registrar delayed providing certified copies of proceedings in a civil matter, PTI reported.
Delivering its verdict on December 11, the consumer panel said the relationship between a litigant and a court registry "is not a contractual or commercial relationship in the ordinary sense". It added that this statutory relationship is governed by procedural rules and the civil manual, not consumer laws.
"Consumer fora are not designed to supervise judicial administration or the internal workings of courts. The complaint is an attempt to transpose an administrative-judicial grievance into a consumer dispute," the commission stated.
It further clarified that the law does not permit such transposition when the underlying acts are statutory or judicial and fees are statutory in nature, PTI reported.
The commission said grievances against a court's registry should be addressed within the judicial system itself, such as through an application to the judge concerned, a complaint to the additional registrar, or a writ petition in the high court.
The complainant had claimed that after applying for certified copies of proceedings in a 2002 suit and paying an initial deposit of Rs 200, the registry delayed delivery of the documents. The registrar argued that the complainant was not a party to the original suit and required a judicial order for the copies. Additionally, the delay was attributed to unpaid deficit charges of Rs 274.
The commission found that the registry had processed the application promptly after the judicial order.
"The procedural bar of deficit charges remaining unpaid, the statutory nature of certified copies, and the public policy underpinning the exclusion of judicial administration from consumer supervision mean the complaint fails on both facts and law," it said.
It added that the complainant did not meet the essential criteria of a consumer grievance.
"A litigant seeking certified copies is merely availing a statutory right. There is no hiring of a service. Thus, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer," the order stated.
The commission also noted it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate acts of court administration.
(With PTI inputs)
