New Delhi, Aug. 14 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a performance audit of consumer commissions across the country, including an assessment of the work done by former judges and judicial officers appointed to these fora, as it questioned whether they had become "rehabilitation centres" for retired people without adequate accountability. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took strong exception to reports of prolonged pendency and poor disposal of consumer disputes, saying appointments to these bodies could not be treated merely as post-retirement rehabilitation. "Have these places become a rehabilitation centre for retired people? That is what is bothering us. You appoint retired district and high court judges and then there is no accountability. We are not willing to accept this. There has to be some kind of a performance evaluation," said the bench. It directed the presidents of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and state consumer commissions to conduct an evaluation of the performance of the commissions under their jurisdiction over the last three years and furnish reports to the court. The court also sought a report from the president of the National Consumer Commission within two weeks detailing the total pendency, composition of the commission, average disposal by its different benches, the estimated time required to clear the backlog and whether its strength needed to be increased. The bench's intervention came after it took note of a newspaper report highlighting the "pitiful and poor performance" of consumer commissions. The court also asked senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, to submit a separate report on the functioning and pendency of state consumer commissions, including the oldest pending cases. During the proceedings, the bench identified two broad concerns -- inadequate infrastructure and deficiencies in appointments, even as it said that the issue of accountability of those manning the consumer fora could not be ignored. "In district commissions, the problem is of quality. They do not usually bother about the nature of the dispute and how they are decided on merits," the bench said. It further observed that while the state commissions may not necessarily have significant arrears, cases ultimately travel to the National Consumer Commission in appeal. When additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the government, the bench said that if arrears were piling up at the National Consumer Commission, its strength would have to be increased and more benches created. The court, however, made clear that merely increasing infrastructure or providing additional facilities would not address the problem unless there was corresponding accountability. The government told Parliament last month that 593,109 consumer cases were pending across the country, including 16,915 before the NCDRC, 1,27,507 before state commissions and 4,48,687 before district commissions....