Consider a scenario familiar to many consumers across Punjab: you order a laptop through a popular e-commerce platform. It arrives damaged. The seller refuses a refund. You file a complaint with the consumer court and receive a full refund within weeks. That option no longer exists.
Punjab has abolished its specialised consumer courts and transferred their jurisdiction to ordinary district courts. The government insists consumer rights remain protected. They do not—at least, not in any meaningful sense.
Need for Specialised Justice
Consumer courts were never unnecessary bureaucracy. They existed because ordinary consumers face unique challenges when seeking justice. A customer who purchases a defective mobile phone, is overcharged by a service provider, or receives substandard care from a private hospital is unlikely to spend years navigating civil litigation. For most people, the cost, delay, and inconvenience outweigh the value of the claim. Specialised courts addressed this directly, offering faster procedures, technical expertise, and an accessible mechanism through which ordinary citizens could hold businesses accountable.
Consumer courts were never unnecessary bureaucracy: they existed because ordinary consumers face unique challenges when seeking justice.
The abolition comes at the worst possible time. Pakistan's consumer economy is expanding rapidly. Millions now rely on online shopping, digital payments, ride-hailing, food delivery, and private healthcare. As commercial activity grows, so do disputes. Strengthening consumer protection should be a priority. Instead, Punjab has dismantled one of the few institutions dedicated entirely to consumer justice.
Illusion of District Court Access
Supporters argue that district courts will continue hearing consumer cases. This is technically true, yet access to a courtroom is not the same as access to justice. District courts already carry crushing caseloads and produce years of delay. The real consequence will not be that consumers lose their rights on paper, but that fewer will bother enforcing them. Faced with mounting costs and indefinite proceedings, most will settle informally. A consumer who accepts a partial refund simply to avoid litigation may get some relief, but the underlying misconduct goes unpunished. Without formal judgments, businesses face no real pressure to change.
This matters beyond individual disputes. Consumer courts produced reasoned decisions that created guidance for consumers, lawyers, and businesses alike. When cases are quietly settled behind closed doors, that public benefit vanishes. A pattern of misconduct by a particular company may never surface. Other consumers are denied precedents that could have strengthened their own claims. Justice is not only about resolving disputes; it is about creating transparency and accountability that benefits everyone.
The Digital App Fallacy
The government points to a new digital application through which consumers can register complaints. Technology can improve accessibility, but an app is not a court. It can log complaints, but it cannot issue binding orders, enforce judgments, or compel a business to appear. And not every citizen has a smartphone, a reliable internet connection, or the digital literacy to navigate a government portal. Elderly citizens, rural populations, and those with limited education will be left behind entirely. A consumer protection framework built around the most connected rather than the most vulnerable is not protection at all.
The consequences will be felt quietly but widely. Businesses become less accountable when enforcement weakens. Unscrupulous sellers, misleading advertisers, and providers of defective goods face less scrutiny. Consumer protection laws are only as strong as their enforcement, and enforcement just became significantly harder.
Reform Over Abolition
If consumer courts were underperforming, the answer was reform. Faster timelines, more judges, digital filing—all were viable paths. If resources were lacking, invest. If procedures were inefficient, fix them. Abolishing the institution entirely treats the courts themselves as the problem rather than confronting the real challenges.
Consumer protection is not a luxury. It is the foundation of a fair economy. Strong consumer rights build confidence in markets, reward honest businesses, and protect ordinary people from exploitation. For many citizens, consumer courts were one of the few examples of the legal system responding to everyday problems, proof that the law could work for them, not just around them.
Punjab's decision may have been driven by administrative convenience. Its consequences will be borne by ordinary people. The true measure of any legal reform is whether it improves access to justice. This one does not.
A right without an effective remedy is no right at all. Punjab has just made that remedy much harder to reach, and it is consumers who will pay the price.