The interview was conducted by Alefiya and Kashika, editors at CCCPL. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal provides a detailed overview of the changing landscape of consumer protection in India, highlighting key trends such as digital commerce challenges, unfair contract terms, and the potential of alternative dispute resolution. He also explains the motivations for his ongoing doctoral research, which focuses on systemic problems in builder-buyer contracts. Ending with valuable career advice, Justice Dhaliwal shares fundamental principles for maintaining professional excellence and offers guidance to young lawyers in a rapidly evolving legal environment.

​​​

Q1. Having had the distinguished honour of serving as the President of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, you have witnessed first-hand the evolution of consumer protection in India. Could you elaborate on the most significant recent trends you have observed in consumer protection, and which of these developments you believe will have the most lasting impact on the field?

 

A1. The landscape of consumer protection in India has undergone redefining changes over the past decade, and these shifts are likely to shape the field for years to come. One of the most significant trends is the rapid expansion of digital markets and e-commerce platforms, which has introduced new complexities in disputes, particularly related to online transactions, digital payments, and data privacy. The challenge now is not merely to resolve monetary disputes, but to safeguard consumers’ rights in an environment where technology intermediates almost every transaction. Simultaneously, unfair terms in standard-form contracts remain a persistent source of contention. Sectors such as real estate, banking, and telecommunications continue to employ clauses that are heavily twisted in favour of service providers, often leaving consumers with little room for negotiation. These disputes, while seemingly routine, are systemic in nature and highlight the broader issue of power imbalance between service providers and consumers. Another notable development is the increasing reliance on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Mediation, conciliation, and collective redressal mechanisms are gaining prominence, reflecting an understanding that faster resolution requires more flexible, participatory, and less adversarial processes. Innovations like virtual hearings, e-filing, and online case tracking have also begun to reshape procedural norms, making justice more accessible and efficient. I believe these combined trends, digital transformation, contract scrutiny, and procedural modernisation will leave a lasting imprint on the field of consumer protection in India.

​

Q2. Specialist Consumer Tribunals were originally conceived to provide expeditious and inexpensive justice to consumers, addressing delays prevalent in the traditional judicial system. However, over the years, delays and pendency have persisted. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent observations in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, urging the establishment of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, how do you evaluate the current efficacy of these tribunals? Do you see merit in the creation of a permanent, fully resourced tribunal?

 

A2. Specialist Consumer Tribunals have indeed fulfilled their promise in the early years of their establishment. They were designed to provide speedy, accessible, and inexpensive justice, and initially, they performed admirably in meeting these objectives. However, over time, systemic challenges such as understaffing, insufficient infrastructure, procedural backlogs, and limited technological integration have significantly diluted their effectiveness. Today, many commissions/forums struggle with long pendency periods, in view of the growth in consumer awareness and claims. The Supreme Court’s suggestion for a permanent consumer tribunal with full-time members is therefore both timely and necessary. A permanent adjudicatory institution could ensure uniformity, maintain higher levels of expertise, and foster efficiency in consumer dispute resolution. However, the success of such a tribunal hinges not merely on its creation but on the robustness of its support system: adequate staffing, independence from external pressures, modern case management systems, digital infrastructure, and consistent capacity-building for members. Only with these elements in place, a permanent tribunal may deliver on the promise of swift and equitable justice to Indian consumers. Above all, the skill of the presiding bench and its knowledge, efficiency can make a difference. During my tenure as President of the State Consumer Commission, Punjab, we (President of the State Consumer Commission, Legal Remembrance and Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Affairs Department) had to recruit Presidents and Members of the District Commission; we conducted a written examination for short-listing candidates, and only a few candidates could clear the examination. The interview was also recorded. I mean selection must be based on merit, and a systematic check regarding integrity and impartiality, no political or corporate bias, i.e, Bench neutrality is vital since consumer cases often involve powerful businesses versus ordinary consumers. Bench's reputation for ethical conduct, transparency, and fairness is also an important factor. The most important criteria for selection are judicial competence, experience, integrity, decision-making skills, consumer sensitivity, and managerial efficiency. A presiding member who is both a good judge and an efficient administrator will ensure faster disposal of cases, reduced backlog, and increased trust in the consumer fora/ commissions.

​

​Q3. Consumer protection laws in India have evolved considerably over the years, most recently with the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In your view, how close is India to aligning its consumer protection framework with international standards, and what obstacles remain in achieving this alignment?

 

A3. India is steadily moving toward international best practices in consumer protection. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, represents a major leap forward. Introduction of provisions on product liability, unfair contract terms, misleading advertisements, and e-commerce regulation. These legislative innovations reflect global trends and demonstrate India’s commitment to ensuring comprehensive consumer protection. However, the greatest challenge lies in the enforcement/ execution of orders rather than legislative design. Laws, no matter how well-crafted, remain ineffective if consumers are unaware of their rights, regulatory authorities operate in silos, meaning authorities do not coordinate with each other, or Commissions lack the resources to handle cases expeditiously. Implementation challenges include inadequate staffing of consumer commissions, technological deficiencies, limited public outreach, and inconsistent monitoring of compliance. Bridging this enforcement gap is critical if India is to truly achieve global parity in consumer protection. Furthermore, awareness campaigns, capacity-building initiatives, and inter-agency coordination are essential to empower consumers and enhance the effectiveness of the legal framework, specifically executing orders promptly

​

Q4. As both a seasoned practitioner and an academic, you are uniquely positioned to evaluate the impact of legal scholarship on courtroom practice. To what extent does academic research shape the practice of law in India, particularly in consumer protection? What reforms or shifts do you think are necessary to make academic research more relevant and accessible to practitioners, regulators, and policymakers?

 

A4. Academic research has a meaningful, though often indirect, influence on legal practice. Scholars inform jurisprudence, provide comparative insights, and can guide policy reforms. For example, in consumer law, studies on standard-form contracts, unfair clauses, and dispute resolution mechanisms can inform both legislative amendments and judicial interpretation. In my opinion, much of academic work remains abstract, overly theoretical, or difficult for busy practitioners to access and apply. To bridge this gap, research must become more empirical, incorporating real-world data, case studies, and actionable recommendations. Academics and former Judges who have experience in a specific field should jointly focus on developing practical tools, model contract clauses, checklists, procedural guidelines, and policy briefs that directly address the challenges faced by courts, regulators, and consumers. Collaboration between academics, the Bar, and judicial officers can ensure that research is not merely intellectually rigorous but also practically useful. Clear, concise communication, combined with interdisciplinary approaches, will enhance the relevance of academic work to the real-world practice of law. Academic institutions must involve former judges, senior advocates in this endeavour. Former judges bring judicial experience and credibility. Senior advocates contribute practical, courtroom-level insights. Thus, bridge the gap between theory (academia) and practice (law in action).

​

Q5. Despite an illustrious career spanning decades in both the judiciary and the Bar, you have chosen to pursue doctoral research on protecting home buyers from unfair terms in builder-buyer contracts. What motivated you to undertake this challenging intellectual endeavour at this stage of your career, and how do you see it contributing to the field?

 

A5. I have always believed that learning is a lifelong pursuit. During my judicial tenure as consumer commission, I have decided more the builder – buyer disputes, besides other consumer disputes. I repeatedly encountered disputes where home buyers were trapped in one-sided agreements with builders. These cases were not isolated incidents; they reflected systemic vulnerabilities in the real estate market and contractual practices. Then, I endeavoured to decide consumer issues in the stipulated time frame. The desire to study these issues rigorously and propose concrete, research-backed solutions motivated me to pursue doctoral research. At this stage of my career and advanced age, undertaking a Ph.D. is both an intellectual challenge and an opportunity to make a lasting contribution to consumer protection. It allows me to delve deeper into systemic patterns, identify shortcomings in legislation and adjudication, and propose reforms that can benefit future generations of consumers. For me, it is an exercise in translating practical experience into scholarly insight, bridging the gap between the words of law, policy, and academia.

​

Q6. Could you provide more details about the scope of your doctoral thesis? In light of the Supreme Court’s recent direction to the CBI to investigate alleged collusion between builders and banks in the Delhi-NCR region, do you consider such instances as illustrative of the broader research questions your work seeks to address?

 

A6. My doctoral thesis is centred on examining the prevalence of unfair terms in standard-form builder–buyer agreements, particularly clauses that limit accountability, delay possession, or impose disproportionately high penalties on buyers while leaving builders largely untouched. The focus is twofold: first, to analyse how consumer fora and higher courts have treated these clauses under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; and second, to assess how the law can be reoriented to provide greater protection to buyers through doctrinal reforms, policy interventions, and practical enforcement mechanisms.

Methodologically, I employ both doctrinal and a little empirical approaches. The doctrinal study maps legal provisions and judicial precedents, while the empirical aspect involves contract analysis and, where possible, consumer case data to uncover patterns of exploitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India noted widespread exploitation of homebuyers through one-sided builder–buyer agreements. It directed the Centre to formulate a uniform Model Agreement to prevent arbitrary clauses. The Court emphasised that such an agreement is essential in the public interest. Inputs from States, developers, and buyers were sought to finalise the draft. The model agreement aims to standardise contracts nationwide and reduce disputes. This move seeks to strengthen consumer protection and restore buyer confidence in real estate.

Yes, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered a CBI probe into the builder–bank nexus (involving Supertech and other NCR Projects) in a case titled Himanshu Singh & Ors v. Union of India. This is the lead petition among a batch of homebuyer cases pending before the Supreme Court, where the Court on 29 April 2025 directed the CBI to conduct preliminary enquiries into suspected collusion between builders and banks in subvention scheme projects across Delhi–NCR. This recent directive to the CBI to investigate the builder–bank nexus in the Delhi–NCR region is a telling illustration of the issues my research seeks to highlight. It reflects the systemic entanglement of real estate developers with financial institutions, often at the expense of the consumer, who is left with little recourse. Such instances go beyond individual disputes. They point to structural imbalances that undermine public confidence in both markets and regulators. My work argues for the need to address these imbalances holistically, ensuring that contractual fairness is not merely theoretical but is actively safeguarded through law, regulation, and judicial oversight. It exemplifies systemic issues where financial institutions, developers, and sometimes regulatory gaps converge, creating vulnerabilities for consumers. These developments underscore the importance of empirical, policy-driven research, highlighting areas where reforms can mitigate risk, enhance transparency, and strengthen enforcement. In this sense, the evolving real-world context continually validates the relevance and urgency of academic inquiry in this domain.

​

Q7. Over the course of your extensive legal career, both on the Bench and as a Senior Advocate, what personal qualities, habits, or approaches have you found most critical to sustaining professional excellence? Additionally, what guidance would you offer to young lawyers entering these challenging fields today, particularly in light of emerging trends such as digitalization, artificial intelligence, and climate-related disputes?

 

A7. If I had to distill the essence of my sustainable legal career, I did law in the evening class while in service in 1979, and was called to the bar on 10.08.1979. I did LL. M in 1994-96 through Distance Education and am now pursuing Ph.D (after demitting judicial assignment on 24 July 2021).

I would emphasize four qualities an Advocate must have are integrity, humility, discipline, and clarity of thought. Integrity is non-negotiable; without it, even the most brilliant lawyer cannot command trust. Humility keeps us grounded and receptive to learning, for the law is too vast for anyone to master completely. Discipline ensures consistent preparation and the ability to manage long, taxing workloads. Finally, mastering the facts of the case, clarity of thought, and the ability to separate the essential from the incidental are indispensable in both adjudication and advocacy.

For young lawyers, my foremost advice is to build a strong foundation in the basics of law, because no amount of technological sophistication can substitute for conceptual clarity. Learn drafting (before drafting must go through decided cases, both for and against, then draft the case-plaint or written statements, etc. At the same time, they must be attuned to the rapidly changing legal ecosystem. The rise of artificial intelligence in legal research and dispute resolution, the growing complexity of data protection frameworks, and the inevitability of climate-related litigation are all challenges that demand interdisciplinary learning.

You must remember that Artificial intelligence enhances efficiency, and human conscience remains the cornerstone of law practice. Young lawyers must integrate it as a supportive tool. The future of law lies in collaboration between two. Justice is not a mere algorithm. It is a living expression of human conscience. AI may process data, but human lawyers guided by consciousness can do justice with compassion. Above all, I would encourage young lawyers to view law not just as a profession, but as a vocation in the service of justice. Approach clients with empathy, courts with respect, and knowledge with unending curiosity. The practice of law is developing, but the timeless values of hard work, credibility, and ethical commitment will remain the foundation of a fulfilling legal career. Must remember word: RICE/RISE- R-Respect, I-Integrity, C- Confidence/S-Self Confidence and E-Excellence, it is ultimate.

​

​____________________________________________________________________________________________________​

Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a Former Judge at the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He also served as the President of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He is currently practicing as an Arbitrator and pursuing Ph.D. in “Protecting Home Buyers from Unfair Terms in Standard Form of Contracts in Builder - Buyer Consumer Courts in India- A Critical Analysis with reference to Consumer Protection Act 2019.