Advocate Dnyanaraj Sant
The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 represented a paradigm shift in Indian legislative history, expanding protections to cover modern e-commerce paradigms, digital contracts, and multi-channel consumer transactions. However, as legal practitioner Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant notes in this comprehensive interview, structural deficiencies and severe infrastructural bottlenecks threaten to undermine the legislative intent. Operating at the frontline of consumer justice in Pune, Adv. Sant brings decades of litigation experience to evaluate systemic hurdles—ranging from chronic staff shortages and inadequate chamber facilities to the contentious proposed relocation of the Consumer Commission to Yerawada.
Interviewer: The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, has now been in force for several years. How do you assess its impact?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is undoubtedly a significant improvement over the 1986 legislation. It reflects the realities of today’s economy, where online transactions, e-commerce platforms and digital services have become an integral part of everyday life. The earlier legislation could not have anticipated these developments because internet-based commerce simply did not exist when it was enacted. The present Act recognises these changes and extends consumer protection to online purchases and digital transactions. In that sense, it is progressive legislation that is capable of addressing contemporary consumer grievances. However, legislation must ultimately be judged by its implementation. While the Act is excellent on paper, the practical reality is considerably different. Unless adequate infrastructure, manpower and institutional support are provided, even the best legislation cannot deliver effective justice.
Interviewer: Where do you believe implementation is falling short, particularly in Pune?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: The shortcomings are primarily administrative. The Consumer Commissions in Pune continue to face severe shortages of infrastructure, staff and adequate working space. Vacant posts remain unfilled for long periods, resulting in existing employees handling the responsibilities of multiple positions simultaneously. Under such circumstances, expecting speedy disposal of consumer disputes becomes unrealistic. The Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide inexpensive and expeditious justice to ordinary citizens. Every individual is a consumer—whether purchasing goods, availing services or conducting transactions online. Public awareness campaigns encourage consumers to assert their rights, but when they approach Consumer Commissions, they often encounter delays that defeat the very purpose of the legislation. This situation cannot be attributed to any one government alone. It reflects years of inadequate institutional attention towards strengthening consumer dispute redressal mechanisms.
Interviewer: One of your major concerns has been the infrastructure available to Consumer Commissions. Could you elaborate?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: Infrastructure is fundamental to the administration of justice. Even the most competent judicial officers cannot function efficiently without proper facilities. Since 2015, Maharashtra has operated Circuit Benches of the State Consumer Commission. Every month, the Circuit Bench sits in Pune for only one week. During this period, the District Consumer Commission is compelled to function from the President’s chamber because the existing premises are too small to accommodate both forums simultaneously. This arrangement disrupts the functioning of both institutions. Advocates face practical difficulties in conducting hearings, litigants experience inconvenience, and judicial work suffers. The situation becomes even more concerning when one considers the pendency before the Circuit Bench. More than 5,500 matters remain pending, with over 1,500 cases awaiting even their first effective hearing date. A five-day sitting every month is clearly insufficient to address such an enormous backlog.
Interviewer: Have you witnessed the consequences of these delays personally?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: Unfortunately, yes. One medical negligence complaint that I filed in 2008 arose from complications following childbirth. The patient remained in a coma for nearly two years before passing away. The matter was finally decided only in November 2025. Similarly, another case instituted in 2011 is still pending. When justice arrives after such prolonged delays, it undermines the confidence that citizens place in the legal system. The Consumer Protection Act envisions expeditious disposal of disputes, but that objective cannot be realised unless the institutions responsible for implementing the Act are adequately equipped. The solution is neither complicated nor unrealistic. Vacant sanctioned posts should be filled immediately, proper infrastructure must be created, and the State Commission’s Circuit Bench in Pune should be converted into a permanent Bench, considering the volume of pending litigation.
Interviewer: The proposed Consumer Commission building at Yerawada has generated considerable discussion. Why do you oppose the proposal?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: Our concern is based entirely on accessibility. The Consumer Commissions presently cater not only to litigants from Pune city but also to consumers from across the entire Pune district, extending from Lonavala to Indapur. Many litigants already spend several hours travelling to Pune. Relocating the Consumer Commission to Yerawada would impose an additional burden on them. We have consistently proposed a practical alternative. Once the District Registrar’s office shifts to its new premises, the entire ground floor of the existing building near Pune Railway Station should be allotted to the Consumer Commissions. It is centrally located, well-connected by public transport and sufficiently spacious for present requirements. Unfortunately, despite repeated representations, the Government proceeded with the Yerawada project without meaningful consultation with the Bar or other stakeholders. In my view, accessibility should remain a primary consideration whenever judicial institutions are relocated.
Interviewer: The legal profession is increasingly engaging with Artificial Intelligence. What is your perspective on the use of AI in consumer litigation?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: Artificial Intelligence is undoubtedly becoming an integral part of modern legal practice, and its presence will continue to grow. However, its use must be guided by caution, professional responsibility and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Recently, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern over reliance on AI-generated case law that did not actually exist. Such incidents demonstrate why advocates must never treat AI as a substitute for legal research or independent application of the mind. Technology should assist legal professionals, not replace them. AI can certainly help lawyers conduct preliminary research, organise information and improve efficiency. However, pleadings, legal arguments and citations must always be carefully verified. Every advocate has an ethical obligation to ensure that the authorities cited before a court are genuine and legally sustainable. I have also witnessed instances where complaints were drafted almost entirely using AI-generated templates, with incomplete placeholders being left in the final pleadings. Such practices compromise professional standards and diminish the advocate’s own analytical ability. AI should therefore be viewed only as an aid—not as a replacement for legal reasoning or professional judgment.
Interviewer: Much has been written about concepts such as caveat emptor and caveat venditor. How relevant are these principles in present-day consumer practice?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: These principles certainly have their place in legal jurisprudence. However, in day-to-day consumer litigation, I have always believed that substance is more important than terminology. My priority has never been to impress the court with Latin expressions. Instead, I focus on preparing pleadings that are simple, precise and easily understandable to both the client and the Commission. Consumer litigation was designed to provide inexpensive and speedy justice. Simplicity in drafting, minimum procedural complexity and effective presentation of facts ultimately serve consumers far better than excessive reliance on legal jargon.
Interviewer: Medical negligence continues to be a significant category of consumer disputes. What recent developments have you observed in this area?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: Medical negligence cases largely depend upon evidence rather than evolving trends. The fundamental question before the Commission is whether negligence can be established through credible material. Expert medical opinion often becomes crucial. In one of my own matters, the opinion obtained from Sassoon General Hospital clearly concluded that the treating doctors ought to have exercised greater care. Once such independent expert evidence establishes negligence, it substantially strengthens the complainant’s case. Proper documentation often becomes the foundation upon which an entire case succeeds or fails.
Interviewer: What advice would you offer to young advocates aspiring to practise consumer law?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: Consumer law offers an excellent opportunity for young lawyers because it directly impacts the lives of ordinary citizens. However, they must cultivate strong drafting skills, develop a sound understanding of statutory provisions and remain committed to thorough legal research. They should embrace technology, but never become dependent upon it. Independent thinking, careful preparation and professional integrity remain the defining qualities of successful advocates. Consumer litigation requires patience, empathy and meticulous attention to facts.
Interviewer: Finally, despite the implementation challenges you have highlighted, do you believe the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has strengthened consumer rights?
Adv. Dnyanaraj Sant: Without any doubt. One of the most significant reforms introduced by the 2019 Act is that consumers may now institute complaints at the place where they reside or work, making access to justice considerably easier. This is a consumer-centric approach that removes unnecessary hardship and reflects the true spirit of the legislation. Similarly, the Act now recognises disputes arising from online commerce and digital transactions, making it far more relevant to contemporary society than its predecessor. Therefore, my assessment is straightforward: the Act itself is progressive, comprehensive and capable of protecting consumers effectively. The real challenge lies in implementation. Unless governments invest in infrastructure, appoint adequate judicial members and staff, create permanent facilities for Consumer Commissions and provide sufficient administrative support, the promise of speedy and inexpensive justice will remain unfulfilled. Consumer protection cannot succeed merely because a good law exists. It succeeds only when institutions are adequately equipped to enforce that law. That, in my opinion, should be the immediate priority if we truly wish to strengthen consumer justice in Maharashtra.
Interview by: Adv. Ruchi Memane, Legal Correspondent PBB
