The sale and distribution of adulterated and expired food products and cheating in price and quantity are rife in Nepal. Despite the provision for consumer courts contained in the amended Consumer Protection Act 2018, the government seems unconcerned about taking any measure to establish them to provide speedier justice to aggrieved consumers. Without a judicial organ to disseminate justice, unscrupulous and rogue traders have been emboldened to dupe consumers. Over the last fiscal year, cases of product fraud and malpractices have doubled, exposing the government's ineptitude in safeguarding consumer rights.

Realistically speaking, a piece of legislation never seems sufficient to defend the rights of consumers in a country bogged down by complex administrative procedures and bureaucratic red tape. Consequently, consumers do not want to get dragged into complex and often lengthy litigations and thus the growing necessity for the establishment of a consumer court which can be used to dispense justice quickly and effectively, devoid of the hassles inherent in civil courts. If carried out efficiently, it would provide a suitable place, which is currently lacking, for consumers to lodge their concerns and motivate others in their quest for rightful claims.

Stumbling upon an expired product may seem like an innocent oversight. But, when food adulteration is carried out on an industrial scale, it will undoubtedly put millions of consumers at risk of food poisoning and even death. An article in the Post highlighted the emboldened acts of such malpractices by traders putting profits before consumers' health. And despite the police seizing tonnes of expired food that were being relabelled with new dates and readied to be sent to the market, investigations have amounted to nothing.

The lack of strict implementation of laws has allowed dishonest traders to go scot-free. The government has been accused of shielding influential traders despite evidence of their involvement in carrying out malpractices and endangering people's lives. And the current hesitancy to speed up the process of setting up consumer courts too corroborates this hypothesis. But the priorities and concerns of consumers seem to evade the authorities, leaving people to fend for themselves in the fight to safeguard their right to quality foodstuffs and services, and the right to compensation for having suffered from sub-standard objects or services as enshrined in the constitution.

It is not whether we should wait until the situation deteriorates further. It is, in fact, a full-blown crisis. Pressure should be exerted upon the government to ensure that consumers' rights which have been stated as a fundamental right are guaranteed by the state. Strong governance for the protection of the people should be the prerogative of the state by establishing a robust framework with real consequences for violation of product safety and endangering public health. Those breaking the rules need to understand that the full wrath of the law will take its due course in a stern but just manner.