Bal Krishna Dhakal, a nominee for Supreme Court justice, on Monday told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing that people will feel justice is being done only if concerned agencies start implementing court verdicts. Otherwise, such orders are meaningless, added Dhakal, while presenting his vision for the reformation of Nepal’s judiciary. He was bang on; the implementation rate of court verdicts in Nepal is abysmal. A case in point is the government’s apathy to forming consumer courts. Two years after the Supreme Court ordered the government to establish such courts in each province in order to ensure consumer rights, the government continues to dilly-dally. This is despite the fact that the apex court verdict was based on solid constitutional and legal grounds.

Article 44 of the constitution guarantees every consumer’s right to quality goods and services. It also says that a person who has suffered injury from substandard goods or services shall have the right to obtain compensation in accordance with the law. Similarly, the constitution stipulates that the state shall formulate policies to protect “the interests of consumers by maintaining trade fairness and discipline by making the national economy competitive, while ending activities such as creating black marketing, monopoly, artificial scarcity and restricting competition.”

In line with the same constitutional provisions, the Consumer Protection Act included a provision to constitute consumer courts in 2018. However, five years after the law’s formulation and two years after the top court’s order, there is still no urgency in setting up the courts. Such courts would have multiple utilities for the state and the society. While the general public’s right to quality goods at a fair price would be ensured, the judicial units would also help the authorities maintain trade fairness and curtail monopoly and artificial scarcity. It is estimated that over 28,000 cases are sub-judice in the Supreme Court alone while there are a similar number of cases in lower courts. Consumer courts would help people get timely justice while also clearing the judiciary’s mounting backlogs.

Nepal has adopted a liberal and open market policy. There are flaws in this system but the country also cannot go back to a state-controlled economy. A functioning liberal economy requires a robust regulatory system to keep tabs on the private investors and entrepreneurs, the system’s main drivers, who are mainly guided by profits. Mushrooming online businesses, many of which are not even registered, have added complications in policing Nepali marketplace. This is where the consumer courts come in.

With our regulatory bodies low on technology and human resources and thus rather ineffective, black marketers are running amok. In the absence of an effective regulatory system and strong implementing agencies, the limited initiatives of consumer rights groups have failed to yield desired results. The black marketers who have strong connections with politicians and bureaucrats fear no punishment even as they openly cheat consumers. Thus the country urgently needs a functioning system that people can rely upon and one which instills fear among wrongdoers. The state’s failure to act on what should be a straightforward case of public interest is inexcusable.