Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs - Appellants
Versus
Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 831-833 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No. 19492 of 2021
Decided on : 03-03-2023
Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 – Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) – Constitution of India – Article 14 – Appointment of President and Members of State and District Commission – Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India – Central Government and concerned State Governments have to amend Rules, 2020, more particularly, Rule 6(9) of Rules, 2020, providing that Selection Committee shall follow procedure for appointment as per Model Rules, 2017 and to make appointment of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission on the basis of performance in written test consisting of two papers of 100 marks each and 50 marks for viva voce – In future and hereinafter, a person having bachelor’s degree from a recognized University and who is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration, economics, commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine, shall be treated as qualified for appointment of President and Members of State Commission – Similarly, a person of a person of ability, integrity and standing, and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration, economics, commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine, shall be treated as qualified for appointment of President and Members of District Commissions. (Paras 8 and 8.1)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned common judgment and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by High Court of Judicature Bombay at Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Public Interest Litigation No. 11/2021 and Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2021, by which, Division Bench of High Court has struck down and has declared Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Union of India and State of Maharashtra have preferred the present appeals.
Findings of Court:
Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020 is unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when the same is wholly impermissible to override/overrule the earlier decisions of this Court and that too without any justification. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
Result : Appeals disposed of with directions.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c), and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 are arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (!) (!) (!) . - Rule 6(9) is unconstitutional because it confers uncontrolled discretion on the Selection Committee to determine its own procedure without objective criteria, which frustrates the object of the Consumer Protection Act (!) (!) (!) . - The Court directed that the selection process must include a written test consisting of two papers (100 marks each) and a viva voce (50 marks) to assess the competency of candidates appointed to discharge judicial functions (!) (!) (!) . - The experience requirement for appointment as a Member of State Commission was reduced from 20 years to 10 years, and for District Commission from 15 years to 10 years, to align with constitutional standards (!) (!) (!) . - The Central Government and State Governments are directed to amend the Rules, 2020 to incorporate the new selection procedure and qualification criteria within the framework of the Model Rules, 2017 (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that the lack of transparency and fixed criteria in the previous rules led to apprehensions of political and executive interference in appointments (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment reaffirmed that Consumer Commissions are quasi-judicial authorities empowered with the powers of civil courts, necessitating high standards for the appointment of their members (!) (!) . - The Court directed that until suitable amendments are made, persons with a bachelor's degree, ability, integrity, standing, and 10 years of relevant experience shall be treated as qualified for appointment (!) . - The Court noted that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 did not substantially change the adjudicatory scheme, thus providing no justification for removing the written examination mechanism (!) . - The Court observed that the previous Rules, 2020 were impermissible legislative overrides of earlier Supreme Court decisions in UPCPBA and Madras Bar Association cases without sufficient justification (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature Bombay at Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Public Interest Litigation No. 11/2021 and Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2021, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has struck down and has declared Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2020) as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Union of India and State of Maharashtra have preferred the present appeals.
2. In exercise of powers conferred by Sections 29 and 43, read with clauses (n) and (w) of Subsection (2) of Section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2019), the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) framed the Rules, 2020.
2.1 Rule 3 of Rules, 2020 provides for qualifications for appointment of President and members of the State Commission. Rule 3(2)(b) provided that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of the State Commission unless he possesses a bachelor’s degree from a recognized university and is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and has special knowledge and professional experience of not less than twenty years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs….
2.2 Rule 4 of Rules, 2020 provides for appointment of President and member of District Commission. Rule 4(2)(c) provided that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of the District Commission unless he is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than fifteen years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs…..
2.3 Rule 6 of Rules 2020 provides for procedure for appointment. Rule 6(9) provided that the Selection Committee shall determine its procedure for making its recommendation keeping in view the requirements of the State Commission or the District Commission and after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience.
2.4 Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) were the subject matter of challenge before the High Court being unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3, Rule 4, and Rule 6 reads as under:
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member unless he is of not less than forty years of age and possesses-
(a) an experience of at least ten years as presiding officer of a district court or of any tribunal at equivalent level or combined service as such in the district court and tribunal: Provided that not more than fifty percent of such members shall be appointed; or
(b) a bachelor's degree from a recognised university and is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and has special knowledge and professional experience of not less than twenty years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration, economics, commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine:
(3) At least one member or the President of the State Commission shall be a woman.
4. Qualifications for appointment of President and member of District Commission. -(1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as President, unless he is, or has been, or is qualified to b
gpt-4
Appointment of President and Members of State and District Commission – Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedur....
The Rules of 2020 were arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they did not provide for a uniform pattern and transparency in selection, did not prescribe ....
The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial independence in the appointment of tribunal members, asserting that executive influence must be minimized to uphold the separation of powers and the ....
Timely appointments to consumer commissions are essential to prevent disruption of services and protect consumer rights, as delays are arbitrary and against public interest.
Notifications issued under non-existent rules are invalid, and subsequent selection procedures based on such notifications are also invalid.
The post of President of District Commission under Section 28(1) of the Act of 2019 for the aforesaid six districts is a single isolated post in each district and therefore it is not amenable to the ....
(1) Constitutionality of Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test as a part of selection criteria for appointment to District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat respecti....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
