Even though the bill makes many requisite changes to the existing structure of consumer protection there are also question being raised over several aspects of the new bill. There are concerns over the new composition of the quasi-judicial bodies or commissions which till now have exercised the power which are similar to the civil courts. However, now the bill prescribes that a president would preside over the commission but doesn’t specify the qualifications thereof, whether the president so appointed by the Central Government would have to have any prior judicial experience to head a quasi-judicial body or not. This according to some, results in violation of doctrine of separation of powers as the bureaucracy would be given direct control over the judicial aspects of framework. Furthermore, the involvement of executives in the appointment of judicial members may adversely affect the independence of judiciary in this case. Unfortunately, the proposed law does not have any provision to counteract Section 79 of the IT act. Under Section 79 of the IT Act, the word intermediary is defined as “any person who on behalf of another person stores or transmits that message or provides any service with respect to that message and includes the telecom service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online-payment sites, online auction sites, online marketplaces and cyber cafes”. No doubt, this is a futuristic looking bill and a quantum leap forward in terms of regulating commerce and industry. But it will not be effective as far as preventing this category of online fraud. Section 101of this act empowers the central government to make rules, a step which could be taken to address this, but the rules cannot take precedence over the IT Act. That’s because the IT Act is a special law. It prevails over the general and prior laws”. So, in effect, if a consumer is unaware of fraud, and does not request a return within the time period specified in the online seller’s trading policy, he will have no recourse later. This is one flaw in the new consumer bill. There are other flaws. The 2015 version of the bill, which was withdrawn following the standing committee report in 2016, was revised considerably and unwanted clauses have been inserted.
For instance, one issue regarding the bill would be its apparent lack of independence. Section 99 of the bill states, “Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Central Authority shall in exercise of its functions under this Act be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the central government may give in writing to it from time to time.” Then, there are some contradictory provisions, such as on the issue of misleading ads. While prescribing heavy penalties for product endorsers who mislead their audience, the bill gives the offender scope to escape these in a subsequent provision by citing “due diligence”. There is no parameter specified for the process of exercising “due diligence”. The consumer dispute redressal commissions are also still being required to decide whether or not to admit a case, which leads to prolonging disputes.
For instance, one issue regarding the bill would be its apparent lack of independence. Section 99 of the bill states, “Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Central Authority shall in exercise of its functions under this Act be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the central government may give in writing to it from time to time.” Then, there are some contradictory provisions, such as on the issue of misleading ads. While prescribing heavy penalties for product endorsers who mislead their audience, the bill gives the offender scope to escape these in a subsequent provision by citing “due diligence”. There is no parameter specified for the process of exercising “due diligence”. The consumer dispute redressal commissions are also still being required to decide whether or not to admit a case, which leads to prolonging disputes.
Comments
Post a Comment