Advocates appeared:
For the Parties: Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Tushar Mandlekar, Adv. Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Dr. Uday Prakash Warunjikar, Adv. Ms. Mrunalini Uday Wsarunjikar, Adv. Deval Anju, Adv. Mr. Pravartak Suhas Pathak, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Yatin M. Jagtap, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, AOR M/s. Lambat & Legiteam, AOR Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv.

What are the rights of President and Members of State and District Commissions regarding appointment qualifications and selection procedures under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020? What are the constitutional grounds for declaring 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 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14? How to amend the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 to ensure transparent appointment procedures including written tests and viva voce for President and Members of State and District Commissions?

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 (!) (!) .

What are the rights of President and Members of State and District Commissions regarding appointment qualifications and selection procedures under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020?

What are the constitutional grounds for declaring 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 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14?

How to amend the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 to ensure transparent appointment procedures including written tests and viva voce for President and Members of State and District Commissions?