INTERVIEW : WAJAHAT HABIBULLAH

WAJAHAT HABIBULLAH, (IAS Retd.)

Former and First Chief Information Commissioner, Government of India

The difficulty with the Indian economy is it started off as a socialist economy. While there's nothing wrong with a socialist economy and there are successful socialist economies, the history of the Indian economy is that it emerged from a colonial economic heritage into a socialist structure – this means that it was concentrated with the government. Hence, consumers were historically treated as beneficiaries rather than economic drivers. Consequently, they were expected to be grateful for what they got rather than being the ones who dictate what they get. However, the consumer cannot merely be a beneficiary – he is actually the mainstay of the economy. What he buys is what governs the running of the economy. The consumer's preference is the basis of the economic structure in a free economy.

It is with the concerted efforts and dedication of various consumer activists and organisations that the concept shifted to putting the consumer at the centre of the economy. We still have to strive to ensure that the consumer gets safe products what the consumer wants, not what the government wants the consumer to get as safe products!

India today possesses a reasonably developed institutional framework for product safety and consumer protection, supported by legislation such as the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which has a dedicated chapter on product liability and the presence of multiple regulatory bodies including the recent development in establishing for the first time the Central Consumer Protection Authority are landmark milestones on consumer protection. In that sense, the structural elements of a product safety ecosystem are largely in place. The more pressing gaps lie in how effectively these mechanisms are understood, accessed and utilised.

A central challenge remains limited consumer awareness. Despite the availability of legal safeguards, grievance redressal mechanisms and regulatory oversight, many consumers are either unaware of their rights or uncertain about how to exercise them. Institutions cannot function optimally if the very stakeholders they are designed to protect do not actively engage with them.

Significant efforts are being made by the Department of Consumer Affairs, regulators and civil society organisations to address this deficit. Yet awareness is not merely about information dissemination; it also involves cultivating confidence and assertiveness among consumers to question unsafe products, report defects and seek remedies when harm occurs.

This is because unless a consumer demands safety, quality and accountability, nobody is going to respond. Because naturally, the focus of a capitalist is not to benefit of the consumer. The consumer is only a means by which he can make profits. Therefore, even the capitalist has to be made to realise that he's not going to get any profit unless the consumer is satisfied. It is therefore not enough that consumer protection tools exist – consumers must feel empowered and motivated to use them.

India's consumer protection architecture provides mechanisms intended to hold manufacturers and sellers accountable for defective or unsafe products. Yet, the practical effectiveness of these provisions is closely linked to consumer awareness and the accessibility of the existing redressal systems. A framework may be robust on paper, but its deterrent and corrective value diminishes if consumers are unaware of their rights or hesitant to invoke available remedies.

At the same time, consumer participation cannot substitute for strong institutions. For example, the RTI Act contains all the guarantors of consumer protection. But, the consumer must himself be aware of his rights and also of the facilities available to enforce his rights. Once that starts happening, then product liability will also become effective.

I wouldn't call it safety failure. I would say that consumer protection to the extent intended has not taken place. But these processes are slow and the economy has to adjust to it. And, if you look back on it, the consumer protection laws only started coming in the 1980s, which is not a very long established legal structure.

A fundamental principle is that safety is not a concession extended by the government or industry; it is an inherent right of the consumer. Regulatory institutions, policymakers and market participants must continuously reinforce this understanding.

Consider routine retail experiences. If we find that a purchased product is not up to the mark, we can ask to return it. While many stores accept the return, some sellers decline returns or refunds by citing 'store policy'. This is against the law. While commercial policies may govern discretionary returns, they cannot override statutory consumer rights in cases involving defective, unsafe, misrepresented or substandard products. Where a product is genuinely deficient or not as promised, consumers are entitled to prompt appropriate remedies under the law.

Recalls do occur, and there have been instances where manufacturers – Tata Nano is a case in point – have taken corrective action upon identifying defects. Such developments indicate that the foundations of a recall mechanism are emerging within the country's consumer protection landscape.

However, recalls remain relatively infrequent and often lack the visibility and systemic consistency seen in more mature markets. One of the principal reasons lies in uneven consumer awareness. In urban centres, consumers are generally more informed, media exposure is greater and regulatory actions receive wider attention. This creates pressure on businesses to respond swiftly when safety concerns arise.

In contrast, awareness levels in many rural and semi-urban regions remain limited. Consumers may be unfamiliar with recall processes, unsure of their rights or hesitant to seek remedies. Encouragingly, Panchayat institutions are increasingly playing a constructive role in spreading awareness and facilitating citizen engagement.

Any discussion on regulatory reform must be situated within India's broader economic evolution. A watershed moment was the liberalisation initiative of 1991 under the leadership of Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao, with Dr. Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister. India moved away from a highly controlled and licence-driven regime toward a more open and competitive economy. Delicensing reduced bureaucratic barriers and expanded consumer choice.

However, while economic liberalisation progressed significantly, the accompanying regulatory architecture – particularly in areas such as product safety – has not kept pace. Liberalisation without equally robust safety governance can create regulatory gaps, especially in fast-expanding and technologically complex markets. Improving product safety today requires not a return to excessive controls, but smarter, more responsive and updated regulation.

Instituting a unified product safety authority in India would certainly be a constructive step toward strengthening consumer protection. India's marketplace is expanding rapidly, products are becoming more complex, and supply chains increasingly cross state and national borders. In such an environment, a centralised institutional framework can help ensure consistency in safety standards, surveillance mechanisms, and recall procedures.

However, the design of such an authority requires careful consideration. India's diversity – in terms of economic conditions, industrial ecosystems, consumption patterns and enforcement capacity – means that a purely centralised structure may not adequately address ground realities. The risks associated with products, as well as regulatory challenges, often vary significantly across states.

Therefore, while a national product safety authority could play an essential coordinating, standard-setting, and oversight role, it should be complemented by strong, autonomous state-level bodies. These state entities would be better positioned to respond to local market conditions, monitor region-specific risks, and enforce regulations effectively.

Manufacturers and brands must recognise that product safety is not merely a matter of regulatory compliance, but a fundamental obligation to consumers. Meeting statutory requirements should represent the baseline, not the ultimate goal.

Beyond compliance, manufacturers must actively invest in safer design, rigorous quality control, transparent labelling and responsive post-market surveillance. Early identification of defects, voluntary corrective actions and honest communication with consumers are hallmarks of a mature safety culture.

They should realise that respecting consumer rights is not at odds with business interests. On the contrary, it strengthens them. Consumer trust, once established, becomes a durable competitive advantage. Ultimately, manufacturers must view safety not as a regulatory hurdle, but as an integral component of product value and brand integrity.

The effectiveness of penalties depends not only on their severity, but on the certainty and consistency of their enforcement. Even the most stringent legal provisions lose deterrent value if enforcement is delayed, uneven or unpredictable. Conversely, moderate penalties, when backed by credible and timely enforcement, can exert significant corrective influence on market behaviour.

In a democratic system such as India's, an equally important – and sometimes underestimated – factor is consumer vigilance. Alert and informed consumers serve as a critical layer of oversight by reporting unsafe products, raising complaints and demanding accountability. Their participation helps regulators detect violations that may otherwise remain unnoticed. Deterrence ultimately emerges from a combination of clear laws, visible enforcement, and public awareness.

In the domain of consumer protection, the government must first recognise itself as a service provider while the citizens are effectively their consumers. And the fact remains that the government delivery mechanisms often fall short of citizen expectations. Strengthening consumer awareness therefore cannot be separated from strengthening governance itself. Consequently, the most meaningful contribution the government can make toward improving consumer awareness is to achieve excellence in its own delivery systems.

Awareness campaigns, advisories and educational initiatives are undoubtedly important. However, their credibility depends heavily on the effectiveness of the institutions that stand behind them. If regulatory responses are slow, complaint mechanisms cumbersome or enforcement inconsistent, public messaging loses impact. Consumers are more likely to engage with and trust systems that are responsive, transparent, and accessible.

Ultimately, consumer protection is not merely an administrative responsibility but a moral one. The guiding principle should be the welfare of the individual citizen – echoing Mahatma Gandhi's enduring dictum: “To wipe every tear from every eye!”

A key lesson from mature regulatory systems such as those in the United States and the European Union is the emphasis on building a failsafe architecture – one that continuously assesses public risks and embeds timely corrective mechanisms. At the heart of these frameworks lies a clear philosophy: consumer safety is non-negotiable, and regulatory institutions must function as reliable guarantors of that safety.

Moreover, consumers in these jurisdictions are deeply conscious of their rights and actively exercise them. Violations are challenged not only through regulatory channels but also through efficient legal systems, where courts act as credible and accessible partners in enforcement.

Simply Jago Grahak Jago!