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, including the NCDRC, and the inordinate delay in disposal of cases. The report had pointed to instances where matters remained pending for years without even being taken up for hearing. "The moment you start paying for case disposal, you will see how the disposal will multiply. The moment you keep on adding more and more infrastructure, the courts and facilities, then unfortunately this is the outcome," remarked the bench. 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. While also appointing advocates Prerna Priyadarshini and Shivani Vij as additional amici curiae, the court said that the pendency chart is to indicate year-wise figures. The presidents of the state commissions and the concerned state government departments have been asked to assist the amicus in collating the statistics. The amicus may also coordinate with Anupam Mishra, joint secretary in the Department of Consumer Affairs, who had earlier been appointed as the nodal officer by the court. 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, contributing to the mounting pendency there....