The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Versus Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2023

(@ SLP(C) NO. 19492 OF 2021)

The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs ...Appellant(S)

Versus

Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors. ...Respondent(S)

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 832 OF 2023

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2023

J U D G M E N T

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:

“3. Qualifications for appointment of President and

members of the State Commission.—(1) A person shall

not be qualified for appointment as President, unless he

is, or has been, a Judge of the High Court;

(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 be a District Judge.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as

member unless he—

(a) is of not less than thirtyfive years of age;

(b) possesses a bachelor's degree from a recognised

University; and

having special knowledge and professional experience of

not less than fifteen 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 District

Commission shall be a woman.

6. Procedure of appointment.—(1) The President and

members of the State Commission and the District

Commission shall be appointed by the State Government

on the recommendation of a Selection Committee,

consisting of the following persons, namely:—

(a) Chief Justice of the High Court or any Judge of the

High Court nominated by him Chairperson;

(b) Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State

Government − Member;

(2) The Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the

State Government shall be the convener of the Selection

Committee.

(3) No appointment of the President, or of a member shall

be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy or absence in

the Selection Committee other than a vacancy or absence

of the Chairperson.

(4) The process of appointments shall be initiated by the

State Government at least six months before the vacancy

arises.

(5) If a post falls vacant due to resignation or death of a

member or creation of a new post, the process for filling

the post shall be initiated immediately after the post has

fallen vacant or is created, as the case may be.

(6) The advertisement of a vacancy inviting applications

for the posts from eligible candidates shall be published

in leading newspapers and circulated in such other

manner as the State Government may deem appropriate.

(7) After scrutiny of the applications received till the last

date specified for receipt of such applications, a list of

eligible candidates along with their applications shall be

placed before the Selection Committee.

(8) The Selection Committee shall consider all the

applications of eligible applicants referred to it and if it

considers necessary, it may shortlist the applicants in

accordance with such criteria as it may decide.

(9) 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.

(10) The Selection committee shall recommend a panel of

names of candidates for appointment in the order of merit

for the consideration of the State Government.

(11) The State Government shall verify or cause to be

verified the credentials and antecedents of the

recommended candidates.

(12) Every appointment of a President or member shall be

subject to submission of a certificate of physical fitness as

indicated in the annexure appended to these rules, duly

signed by a civil surgeon or District Medical Officer.

(13) Before appointment, the selected candidate shall

furnish an undertaking that he does not and will not have

any such financial or other interest as is likely to affect

prejudicially his functions as a President or member.”

2.5 The validity of the aforesaid rules, namely, Rules 3 (2)(b),

4(2)(c) and 6(9) were challenged before the High Court by

the original writ petitioner on the following grounds:

(a) Uncontrolled discretion and excessive power to the

selection committee to determine its procedure to

recommend candidates to be appointed is arbitrary,

unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

(b) Considering the nature of work, the candidate’s

competency needs to be tested before being

recommended for the appointment to discharge

judicial functions. Therefore, the candidates who are

being appointed must have a legal background.

candidates, the object of the Consumer Protection

Act is likely to be frustrated.

(d) The president and members of the State and District

Commission are empowered with the powers of the

Court. In the appointment of Judicial Magistrate

First Class (JMFC), the candidates are tested by

written examination and viva voce.

(e) The Draft model rules approved by this Hon’ble

Court and accepted by all the parties are not

adhered with. Hence, contrary to the directions of

this Hon’ble Court.

(f) The transparency and selection criteria are absent

in the said rules.

(g) In absence of transparency in the matter of

appointments of Chairman and Members, there is

strong apprehension of political and executive

interference.

2.6 It was also the case on behalf of the original writ

petitioners before the High Court that this Court in the

case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. All Uttar

Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association; (2017) 1

SCC 444 (hereinafter referred to as the UPCPBA),

directed to frame model rules under the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, model rules were framed

by this Court and accepted by all the parties. It was also

the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that by

adopting the model rules, many states notified the

Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowance and

Conditions of Service of President and Members of State

Commission and District Forum) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter

referred to as the Rules, 2017) on 18.05.2018. It was

submitted that model rules 2012 were already in existence

in the State of Maharashtra made on 03.01.2012 under

Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the

said Rules already had the provision of written

examination of 100 marks for aspiring

candidates/applicants for the post of President and

Members of District Consumer Forum under Rule 10. It

was submitted that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2019) came into force

with effect from 20.07.2020 by repealing the erstwhile

statute Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also argued

on behalf of the original writ petitioners that under the

Rules 2020, the power conferred upon the Selection

Committee to determine its own procedure for selection of

President and Members of the District and the State

Commission constituted under the Act, 2019 is in

contravention of the decision of this Court in the case of

UPCPBA (supra). It was also argued on behalf of the

original writ petitioners that looking at the judicial

functions to be performed by President and Members of

the District and State Commissions constituted under the

Act, 2019, the selection without holding written

examination, but, only on the basis of viva voce, would

result into selection of unsuitable candidates which will

further result in denial of justice. It was also argued on

behalf of the original writ petitioners that prescribing

minimum experience of 20 years and 15 years for

President and Members of State and District Commission

respectively, is contrary to the directions issued by this

Court in the case of Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of

India and Another; (2021) 7 SCC 369. That thereafter, by

the impugned common judgment and order the High Court

has declared Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the

Rules, 2020 as ultravirus and unconstitutional,

unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India and contrary to the observations and

directions issued by this Court in the case of UPCPBA

(supra). The High Court has specifically observed that

granting complete discretion under the Rules 2020 to the

Selection Committee to determine its own procedure would

result in creating a situation which has been narrated in

the case of UPCPBA (supra) and will again lead to wide

variations in standards as well as a great deal of

subjective, bureaucratic and political interference, and

finally it will result in denial of justice which will be in

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That

while holding the aforesaid provisions unconstitutional,

unreasonable and arbitrary, the High Court has

considered the historical background of tribunalisation

and the fact that the tribunals are endowed with the

judicial functions with a duty to decide the matters in

judicious manner. Therefore, the High Court has opined

and observed that the standards expected from the judicial

members of the tribunals and standards applied for

appointing such members, should be as nearly as possible

as applicable to the appointment of judges exercising such

powers. That thereafter, following the decisions of this

Court in the case of Madras Bar Association (supra) and

UPCPBA (supra), the High Court has concluded and

passed the final order as under:

i. “The Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2021 is

allowed;

ii. The Writ Petition No. 1096/2021 is partly allowed;

iii. It is held and declared that Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2) (c)

and Rule 6(9) of the Rules of 2020, are arbitrary,

unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India for the reasons recorded herein

above and hence are quashed and set aside;

iv. The Union of India is directed to provide for

appropriately made Rules as substitutes for Rule 3

(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020,

declared unconstitutional, keeping in view the

observations made in the judgment, within four

weeks from the date of the judgment and order;

v. The vacancy notice dated 2nd February, 2021 issued

by the respondent no. 2 for inviting applications for

the post of Members of the State Commission and

President and Members of the District Commission,

is hereby quashed and set aside;

vi. The process of selection of Members of the State

Commission and President and the Members of the

District Commission, initiated in pursuance to the

vacancy notice dated 2nd February, 2021, stands

cancelled;

vii. Fresh process of selection of members of the State

Commission, President and the members of the

District Commission be initiated in accordance with

the amended Rules and completed at the earliest as

directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India;

viii. It is made clear that we have not dealt with the

validity of appointment made of the President of

State Commission, Maharashtra State;

ix. No orders as to costs.”

2.7 The impugned common judgment and order passed by the

High Court is the subject matter of present appeals.

3. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India

has submitted that after the matters were heard by this

Court on 17.11.2022 and 18.11.2022, where this Court

was of the prima facie view that Rule 6(9), which deals with

the procedure of appointment, left too much discretion in

the hands of the selection committee, and that there ought

to have been some objective criteria on the basis of which

the fitness and suitability of candidates be tested, such as

a written examination. It is pointed out that based on the

observations that fell from this Court on the previous dates

of hearing, the matter was considered by the Government

and pursuant thereto, a meeting was called between the

Union of India and all the State governments to consider

the desirability and feasibility of conducting a written

examination for appointment to the State and District

Commissions, or in the alternate, to consider as to

whether rules or guidelines can be made which would

reduce the discretion available to the SearchcumSelection Committees while carrying out appointments. It

is submitted that in the course of discussions between the

States, it was observed that most states were not in favour

of conducting written tests. It is submitted that based on

the discussion in the said meeting, it was observed that a

written examination for appointments of members of

tribunals as a uniform policy would be neither feasible nor

desirable, due to, inter alia, the following reasons:

(i) The number of vacancies to tribunals per year is very

low, and in some tribunals only in single digits. It

would not be economically or practically feasible to

conduct an examination for five or six posts. ,

(ii) Most tribunals require appointment of members with

expertise in varied relevant fields, such as consumer

affairs, economics, law, securities, finance, telecom,

electricity, and so on. A single written examination

with a common syllabus would not be possible and

one may have to conduct a different examination for

each different area of expertise, which would make

the whole process arbitrary and unwieldy.

(iii) Competent, eminent, and successful persons aged

over thirty five or forty or even fifty may not be willing

to write a written examination and then have their

marks published openly, which would dissuade a

large number of people who may be desirable from

applying.

(iv) Persons with experience of fifteen or twenty years

may no longer have the requisite examination giving

skills, and a written examination may unduly favour

academics or researchers as opposed to people who

are in the field practically or in a corporate

environment or in some other non academic field.

(v) Conducting a written examination may lengthen the

entire process of appointment, which already takes

46 months on account of the requirement of

advertisement, public notice, receipt of applications

and verification of documents, IB inputs, tax and

medical reports, and then a personal interaction with

the Selection Committee. This may end up increasing

the number of vacancies in the tribunals, which is

not desirable.

(vi) Prescribing a uniform requirement of a written

examination across states would fail to take into

account the local requirements of each state for

instance, the number of applications received in the

smaller states such as Assam or Goa or Sikkim are

very low, and sometimes even lesser than the

number of posts advertised. A written examination

may lead to greater difficulties in filling up the vacant

posts.

(vii) Prescribing a uniform requirement of a written

examination across tribunals is also not considered

desirable, as each tribunal has its own eligibility

criteria and different categories of persons would fall

in their zone of consideration. For instance, several

posts can only be manned by retired judges, and it

would not be appropriate to subject judges of the

Supreme Court or the High Courts to a written

examination. Equally, very few people are actually

eligible to be appointed as technical members to

specialised tribunals such as TDSAT or APTEL, and

eminent persons in the field of telecom or electricity

may not wish to write examinations to leave lucrative

careers in their areas of expertise. This would lead to

the tribunals losing out on desirable persons, who

may otherwise wish to join these tribunals in the

spirit of public service.

3.1 Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India

has further submitted that based on the further

discussions in the meeting held on 13.01.2023 between

Union of India and all the States/UTs to consider the

uniform measures to guide the Selection Committees in

the exercise of their selection processes, it has been

proposed that the following proviso, to provide for the

issuance of necessary instructions to guide the discretion

available to the Selection Committee, could be considered

to be inserted below Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020:

“Provided that the Selection Committee shall be guided

by the instructions, as may be issued, by order, by the

Central Government from time to time, while making

assessment of a candidate in regard to his suitability

for appointment as President or member in the State

Commission or the District Commission.”

3.2 It is further submitted that in so far as the development of

uniform measures to be applicable to appointments in the

State Commissions and the District Commissions

(President and Members) across the country is concerned,

the following measures, keeping in view the level of the

posts, the statutory functions to be discharged by the

holders of these posts, the very objective enshrined in the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019, are considered to be

formulated:

a. The selection of a candidate for appointment as the

President or member in the State Commission or the

District Commission may be based on the marks

secured by him, out of a total of 100 marks. The total

marks (100) may be the sum of; (i) 60 marks for an

interview; and, (ii) 40 marks for certain special

achievements of a candidate.

b. The aforesaid formulation, if found in order by this

Hon'ble Court, can be treated as an instruction under

the above said proviso.

c. The rationale behind the proposed distribution of

marks in such a way where the interview component

would outweigh the other, is to ensure the selection of

the most suitable candidate, given the level of the

posts and duties attached thereto.

d. The distribution of 40 marks for special achievements

may be considered as under:

No.

Criteria Maximum

Marks

Marking System

1. Number of

years of

experience

15 (i) For the minimum

number of years of

experience required in

terms of the rules

governing the

recruitment conditions

10 marks

(ii) For additional

experience of every 2

years 1 mark

(maximum 5 marks).

In case of experience of fewer

than 2 years, maximum

marks for experience of 2

years i.e. 1 mark may be

apportioned according to the

number of years of

experience. Experience of

fewer than six months may be

ignored for this purpose.

2. Higher

Educational

Qualification

15 (i) For Graduate 6 marks

(ii) For Post Graduate – 6

marks

(iii) For PhD. 3 marks

3. Prior public

service

rendered

10 For every 4 years of regular

service rendered in or under

the Central/State

Governments and

Constitutional bodies 2

marks (maximum 10 marks)

3.3 It is submitted that on an overall consideration of the

deliberations, it appears that the conduct of a written test

which has several handicaps will not be feasible and shall

not be most suitable measure for the purpose of selection.

4. While opposing the present appeals Dr. Uday Prakash

Warnjikar and Dr. Tushar Mandalekar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respective respondents have

vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances

of the case the High Court has not committed any error in

declaring Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of

Rules, 2020 as arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4.1 It is submitted that the bone of contention of the present

respondent is to have the highest standards and strict

scrutiny before the candidates are being appointed in the

Consumer State Commission and District Commissions. It

is submitted that the selection method under the Rules,

2020 and the process adopted by the appellant will lead to

the appointment of incompetent candidates to adjudicate

the consumer disputes. It is submitted that under Rule

6(9), the selection committee is empowered with

uncontrolled discretionary powers to determine its

procedure in the appointment of the President and

Members of the State and District Commission. It is

submitted that such delegation of uncontrolled powers will

cause undesirable results.

4.2 In support of their submissions that Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule

4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of Rules, 2020 are arbitrary,

unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India, it is submitted as under:

(a) That the selection method under Rules, 2020 confers

uncontrolled discretion and excessive power to the

selection committee to determine its procedure to

recommend candidates to be appointed is arbitrary,

unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India;

(b) Considering the nature of work, the candidate’s

competency needs to be tested before being

recommended for the appointment to discharge

judicial functions;

candidates, the object of the Consumer Protection Act

is likely to be frustrated;

(d) The president and members of the State and District

Commission are empowered with the powers of the

Court. In the appointment of Judicial Magistrate First

Class, when the candidates are tested by written

examination and viva voce, the similar procedure to be

adopted for appointment in the District and State

Commissions;

(e) The transparency and selection criteria are absent in

the Rules, 2020;

(g) In absence of transparency in the matter of

appointments of Chairman and Members, there is

strong apprehension of political and executive

interference.

4.3 It is further submitted that even the Law Commission in

its 272nd Report suggested that the members of the newly

constituted tribunals should possess the qualifications

akin to the judges of the High Court and District Court.

The Report further recommended uniformity in the

appointments.

4.4 It is further submitted that as such this Court in the case

of UPCPBA (supra) directed to frame model rules under

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is submitted that by

the said judgment, model rules were approved by this

Court and accepted by all the parties. It is submitted by

adopting the model rules, many states notified the

Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowances

and Conditions of Service of President and Members of

State Commission and District Forum) Rules, 2017

(hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2017). It is further

submitted that the State of Maharashtra also adopted and

approved the model rules on 24.05.2019 in exercise of

powers conferred under the provisions of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986. It is further submitted that even

prior thereto, model rules 2012 were already in existence

in the State of Maharashtra under Section 30 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the said rules already

had the provision of written examination of 100 marks for

aspiring candidates/applicants for the post of President

and Members of District Consumer Forum under Rule 10.

4.5 It is further submitted that as observed hereinabove this

Court approved the uniform model rules for appointment,

salary, service condition etc., for the effective adjudication

of consumer disputes under the Act, 1986. The said model

rules were adopted by all the parties. It is submitted that

the adjudicatory powers of the consumer

fora/commissions are judicial functions. There is no

change in the judicial functions of the President and

Members of the State and District Commission. There is no

change in the judicial functions of President and Members

of the State and District Commission even postConsumer

Protection Act, 2019 (Act, 2019) which have come into

force with effect from 20.07.2020. It is submitted that

there is no change in the legislative scheme concerning

adjudication of consumer disputes under the Act of 2019.

It is submitted that as such the Consumer Protection Act,

2019 has come into force with effect from 20.07.2020 by

repealing the erstwhile statute Consumer Protection Act,

1986. It is submitted that the sole intention of the

legislature is to provide adequate safeguards to the

consumers due to drastic changes in the modern market

and the constantly emerging vulnerability of the

consumers. Under the Act, 2019, the pecuniary

jurisdictions of the District and State Commissions are

enhanced substantially. However, there is no substantial

change in the scheme with respect to the adjudication of

the consumer disputes. Therefore, consumer commissions

are quasijudicial authorities empowered to discharge

judicial functions with the adequate powers of the court,

including civil and criminal.

4.6 It is submitted that under Section 71 of the Act, 2019, the

Commissions are empowered with the powers of the civil

court and under Section 72, the Commissions are

empowered with the powers of JMFC. It is submitted that

despite the above when the Rules, 2020 are framed by the

Central Government in exercise of powers under Section

101 of the Act, 2019 which provides for the impugned Rule

3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) made the things

worse than the prevailing, prior to Rules, 2020.

4.7 It is further submitted that therefore, when the State and

the District Commissions are performing the quasijudicial

functions and judicial functions and exercising the powers

of the Court, to test the competence of the candidate

written examination and vivavoce would be necessary.

Only interviews of the aspiring candidates would lead to

political interference and undeserving results through

such a selection process.

4.8 It is further submitted that Rule 6(9) provides uncontrolled

discretion to the Selection Committee. Uncontrolled

discretion in the matter of recommendations of candidates

to be appointed to discharge judicial functions is in clear

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is

submitted this Court in the case of Madras Bar

Association (supra) declared that “Article 14 clearly

includes a right to have the person’s rights adjudicated by

a forum which exercises judicial powers in an impartial

and independent manner, consistent with the recognized

principles of adjudication.” It is submitted that in the

present case under Rule 6(9) the Central Government has

granted complete discretion to determine the selection

procedure without laying down criteria and standards and

the same is unreasonable and arbitrary.

4.9 It is further submitted that even the said provision is also

unreasonable on the ground that there is no check and

balance under Rules, 2020 over the Selection Committee.

The Selection Committee has absolute discretion in the

recommendations of the candidates.

4.10 It is further submitted that there are four sources of

candidates to be appointed as president and members of

the Commissions, viz., serving judicial officers, retired

judicial officers, advocates, or any other individuals having

certain knowledge and experience. It is submitted that the

Rules direct the selection committee to take into account

suitability, a record of past performance, integrity and

adjudicatory experience. The selection committee may

consider the suitability of the retired or serving judicial

candidates based on available record, however, the

suitability of the candidates coming from nonjudicial

sources, cannot be determined without testing the overall

competency. It is submitted that the appointments with

bias and without transparency would frustrate the object

of the Consumer Protection Act.

4.11 It is further submitted that the Rules, 2020 as such nullify

the judgment of this Court in the case of UPCPBA (supra).

4.12 It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in

the case of Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India &

Anr.; (2021 SCC OnLine SC 463) in Writ Petition (C) No.

502/2021 decided on 14.07.2021 that the permissibility of

legislative override in this country should be in accordance

with the principles laid down by this Court in the catena of

decision which are as under:

“44. The permissibility of legislative override in this country

should be in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court

in the aforementioned as well as other judgments, which have been

culled out as under:

a) The effect of the judgments of the Court can be nullified by

a legislative act removing the basis of the judgment. Such law can be

retrospective. Retrospective amendment should be reasonable and

not arbitrary and must not be violative of the fundamental rights

guaranteed under the Constitution.

b) The test for determining the validity of a validating

legislation is that the judgment pointing out the defect would not

have been passed, if the altered position as sought to be brought in

by the validating statute existed before the Court at the time of

rendering its judgment. In other words, the defect pointed out

should have been cured such that the basis of the judgement

pointing out the defect is removed.

c) Nullification of mandamus by an enactment would be

impermissible legislative exercise [See : S.R. Bhagwat (supra)]. Even

interim directions cannot be reversed by a legislative veto

[See : Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (supra) and Medical Council

of India v. State of Kerala.

d) Transgression of constitutional limitations and intrusion

into the judicial power by the legislature is violative of the principle

of separation of powers, the rule of law and of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.”

4.13 It is further submitted that even the criteria of having

experience of minimum 20 years for appointment of

Member in the State Commission under Rule 3(2)(b) and

criteria of having experience of minimum 15 years for

appointment of Member in District Commission as per

Rule 4(2)(c) is absolutely arbitrary and illegal and

unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Article

217 and 233 of the Constitution of India. It is further

submitted that even the same is violative of the judgment

and order passed by this Court in the case of Madras Bar

Association (supra).

4.14 It is submitted that the High Court has rightly quashed the

provision of Rule 4(2)(c) as the requirement of having

experience of 15 years for a lawyer in order to get the

appointment as Member in District Forum/Commission is

arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that even in

accordance with the Article 233 of the Constitution of

India a lawyer needs to have only seven years of practice

as an advocate in High Court. Even in according to the

provisions of Rule 4(1) a person who is eligible to be

appointed as a District Judge (having minimum experience

of seven years as per Article 233 of Constitution of India) is

qualified to be appointed as President of District

Commission. But in order to be appointed as Member, the

Section 4(2)(c) mandates a minimum experience of 15

years which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

4.15 It is further submitted that the scheme envisaged in

appointment of President under Rule 3(1) for President of

State Commission has a different criteria and that of

Member under Rule 3(2)(b) is different and distinct. The

person can be qualified to be a President if he is or has

been a judge of High Court. However, in order to get

appointment as a Member of State Commission the Rule

3(2)(b) mandates a minimum experience of 15 years, which

is illegal and violative of Article 14, because the

requirement of qualification and experience of a lawyer to

get appointed as a High Court Judge is only ten years as

per Article 217 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted

that therefore, the High Court has rightly declared that

Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of Rules, 2020

as ultravirus, arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of

the Constitution of India. It is submitted that while

holding so the High Court has discussed and considered

the decision of this Court in the case of Madras Bar

Association (supra) : (2021) 7 SCC 369.

4.16 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above

decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.

5. Heard Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General

for India, appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) and Dr.

Uday Prakash Warunjikar and Dr. Tushar Mandalekar,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

respondent(s).

6. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has

declared Rule 3(2)(b) and 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 unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of Article

14 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)

unconstitutional read as under:

“3. Qualifications for appointment of President and

members of the State Commission.—

xxx

(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—

xxx

(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:

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 be a District Judge.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as

member unless he—

xxx

having special knowledge and professional experience of

not less than fifteen years in consumer affairs, law, public

affairs, administration, economics, commerce, industry,

finance, management, engineering, technology, public

health or medicine.

xxx

6. Procedure of appointment.

xxx

(9) 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.

xxx

6.1 While considering the correctness of the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court and while

considering the constitutional validity of Rule 3(2)(b) and

Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of Rules, 2020, the earlier

decisions of this Court, more particularly, the decision in

the case of UPCPBA (supra) which was under the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986 is required to be referred to. The issue

with respect to the conditions of eligibility for appointment

of nonjudicial members was one of the issues before this

Court in the case of UPCPBA (supra). This Court earlier

constituted a committee presided over by Mr. Justice Arijit

Pasayat, a former Judge of this Court to examine various

issues including the conditions of eligibility for appointment

of nonjudicial members. The Committee in its interim

report observed that the Fora constituted under the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 do not function as

effectively as expected due to a poor organizational setup;

grossly inadequate infrastructure; absence of adequate and

trained manpower and “lack of qualified members” in the

adjudicating bodies. This Court in paragraphs 4 to 6 noted

and observed as under:

“4. The quality of presiding members, especially of nonjudicial members at the State and district levels is poor.

One of the reasons is that the remuneration which is being

paid to nonjudicial members of consumer fora varies from

State to State and is too meagre to attract qualified talent.

Most of the nonjudicial members are not even capable of

writing or dictating small orders. At certain places nonjudicial members act in unison against the Presiding

Officer, while passing orders contrary to law, damaging the

reputation of the adjudicating body. The Presidents, as a

result, prefer a situation where such nonjudicial members

absent themselves from work if only so that judicial work

can be carried out by the Presiding Judge impartially and

objectively. Many nonjudicial members do not maintain

punctuality and others attend to work sporadically once or

twice a week. The Committee has observed that the

problem lies in — (i) absence of proper remuneration; (ii)

appointment of former judicial officers who lack motivation

and zeal; (iii) appointment of practising lawyers as

Presiding Officers of District Fora; and (iv) political and

bureaucratic interference in appointments. Many of the

nonjudicial members attend to the place of work only to

sign orders which have been drafted by the Presiding

Officer.

5. The Committee has furnished concrete examples of how

bureaucratic and political influence has marred the

selection process as a result of which the functioning of

consumer fora is detrimentally affected. Three instances

furnished in the Report of the Committee provided a telling

example of the state of affairs:

“(15) The Committee could make out that there has

been considerable bureaucratic and political

influence/interference in the “selection process” and

functioning of the consumer fora. Just to cite a few

instances, the Committee found that relatives of politicians,

bureaucrats and judicial fraternity have been selected. A

nonJudicial Member Mr Jamal Akhtar posted at District

Forum, Meerut has been absenting without permission

since 1152015. The State Government has failed to take

any action against him. Even the plea of the President,

State Commission has gone unheeded. The result is that

his post has not been declared vacant and another nonJudicial Member posted elsewhere has been attached in his

place.

(16) One nonJudicial Member who had her first term

at Lucknow and has now been enjoying her second term,

having been appointed for District Forum, Barabanki but

has been attached to Greater Noida and as per the reports,

comes to Forum once or twice a week. Another woman nonJudicial Member who happens to be wife of a bureaucrat

was appointed for District Forum, Baghpat but was

attached/posted at Greater Noida. These few instances

make it crystal clear that there is definite political influence

and interference and in such a scenario, the work of

District Consumer Fora is affected as it results in lowering

the morale of the President.

(17) In Haryana, a nonJudicial Woman Member

did/does not attend the District Forum regularly, as she

has to travel around 150/160 km every day. The President

of one District Forum who happens to be former President

of Bar Association has been serving the second term as

President. Such nonJudicial Members manage to get

selected and then misuse their position as Members, as

they call themselves “Judges”.”

6. The selection of persons as Presiding Officers and as

Members of the fora lacks transparency without a fixed

criteria for selection. The Committee has, in our view with

justification, proposed that a written test should be

conducted to assess the knowledge of persons who apply

for posts in the District Fora. Issues of conflict of interest

also arise when persons appointed from a local area are

appointed to a District Forum in the same area.”

Ultimately in paragraph 28, this Court issued the following

directions:

“28.1. The Union Government shall for the purpose of

ensuring uniformity in the exercise of the rulemaking

power under Section 10(3) and Section 16(2) of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 frame model rules for

adoption by the State Governments. The model rules shall

be framed within four months and shall be submitted to

this Court for its approval;

28.2. The Union Government shall also frame within four

months model rules prescribing objective norms for

implementing the provisions of Section 10(1)(b), Section

16(1)(b) and Section 20(1)(b) in regard to the appointment

of members respectively of the District Fora, State

Commissions and National Commission;

28.3. The Union Government shall while framing the model

rules have due regard to the formulation of objective norms

for the assessment of the ability, knowledge and experience

required to be possessed by the members of the respective

fora in the domain areas referred to in the statutory

provisions mentioned above. The model rules shall provide

for the payment of salary, allowances and for the conditions

of service of the members of the consumer fora

commensurate with the nature of adjudicatory duties and

the need to attract suitable talent to the adjudicating

bodies. These rules shall be finalised upon due

consultation with the President of the National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, within the period

stipulated above;

28.4. Upon the approval of the model rules by this Court,

the State Governments shall proceed to adopt the model

rules by framing appropriate rules in the exercise of the

rulemaking powers under Section 30 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986;

28.5. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission is requested to formulate regulations under

Section 30A with the previous approval of the Central

Government within a period of three months from today in

order to effectuate the power of administrative control

vested in the National Commission over the State

Commissions under Section 24B(1)(iii) and in respect of

the administrative control of the State Commissions over

the District Fora in terms of Section 24B(2) as explained in

this judgment to effectively implement the objects and

purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

6.2 That thereafter, vide a further order dated 18.05.2018

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer

Protection Bar Association – Civil Appeal No.

2740/2007 reported in (2018) 7 SCC 423, this Court

considered the draft model rules which were framed by the

Union of India. Before this Court the model rules came to

be accepted by the counsel representing all the parties

before the Court. Therefore, this Court directed that the

State Governments shall frame appropriate rules in

exercise of the rulemaking power under Section 30 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in accordance with the

Final Draft Model Rules submitted by the Union of India. It

appears that thereafter many States notified the Consumer

Protection (appointment, salary, allowances and conditions

of service of President and Members of the State

Commission and District Forum) Rules, 2017. Rules, 2017

which were adopted provided that in every cases, the

selection of Members of the District Fora and State

Commission shall be on the basis of a written test of two

papers (Rules 5 and 7). It appears that even the State of

Maharashtra also adopted and approved the model rules

on 24.05.2019 and framed Rules, 2019 which had a

written examination of 200 marks. It provided that State

Commission shall hold the final examination of 250 marks

for the post of Members. Out of 250 marks, 200 marks

shall be for written examination and 50 marks shall be for

vivavoce examination. In the case of Madras Bar

Association (supra) decided on 27.11.2020 – (2017) 7

SCC 369, this Court directed that while considering

Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities

(Qualifications, Experience and other conditions of Service

of Members), the Rules, 2020 shall be amended to make

advocates with an experience of at least 10 years eligible

for appointment as judicial members in the tribunals. That

thereafter, the Central Government framed Tribunal

Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service)

Ordinance, 2021 which fell for consideration before this

Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 502/2021 decided on

14.07.2021 – 2021 SCC Online SC 463. In the said

decision this Court also considered the permissibility of

legislative override. After considering catena of decisions of

this Court on permissibility of legislative override this

Court observed and held in paragraphs 42 to 44 as under:

“42. The judgment of this Court in Madan Mohan

Pathak v. Union of India (1978) 2 SCC 50 requires a close

scrutiny as it was adverted to and relied upon by both

sides. A writ petition was filed in the High Court of Calcutta

for a mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation

(LIC) to act in accordance with the terms of settlement

dated 24.01.1974 read with administrative instructions

dated 29.03.1974. The writ petition was allowed by the

learned single Judge against which a Letters Patent Appeal

(LPA) was preferred by the LIC. During the pendency of the

LPA, the LIC (Modification of Settlement) Act, 1976 came

into force. The LPA was withdrawn in view of the

subsequent legislation and the decision of the learned

single Judge became final. Validity of the said statute was

assailed in a writ petition filed under Article 32 by the

employees of the LIC. Justice Bhagwati, speaking for the

majority, was of the opinion that the judgment of the

Calcutta High Court was not a mere declaratory judgment

holding an impost or tax as invalid so that a validating

statute can remove the defect pointed out in the judgment.

He observed that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court

gave effect to the rights of the petitioners by mandamus,

directing the LIC to pay annual cash bonus. As long as the

judgment of the learned single Judge is not reversed in

appeal, it cannot be disregarded or ignored. The LIC was

held to be bound by the writ of mandamus issued by the

Calcutta High Court. Justice Beg, in his concurrent

opinion, held that the rights which accrued to the

employees on the basis of the mandamus issued by the

High Court cannot be taken away either directly or

indirectly by subsequent legislation. Thereafter, Madan

Mohan Pathak (supra) came up for discussion in Sri Ranga

Match Industries v. Union of India 1994 Supp (2) SCC 726.

Justice Jeevan Reddy was of the opinion that the Madan

Mohan Pathak case cannot be treated as an authority for

the proposition that mandamus cannot be set aside by a

legislative act. Justice Hansaria was not in agreement with

such view. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in A.V.

Nachane v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 205, Justice

Hansaria held that the legal stand taken by Justice Beg in

the Madan Mohan Pathak case had received majority's

endorsement and it was because of this that retrospectivity

given to the relevant rule assailed in A.V. Nachane was held

to have nullified the effect of the writ and was accordingly

invalid. In view of the difference of opinion, the matter was

referred to a larger bench. We are informed by the leaned

Amicus Curiae that the difference of opinion could not be

resolved as the case was settled out of court.

43. In Virender Singh Hooda (2004) 12 SCC 588, this Court

did not accept the contention of the petitioners therein that

vested rights cannot be taken away by retrospective

legislation. However, it was observed that taking away of

such rights would be impermissible if there is violation of

Articles 14, 16 or any other constitutional provision. The

appointments already made in implementation of a decision

of this Court were protected with the reason that “the law

does not permit the legislature to take away what has been

granted in implementation of the Court's decision. Such a

course is impermissible.” This Court in Cauvery Water

Disputes Tribunal 1993 Supp (1) SCC 96 (2) declared the

ordinance which sought to displace an interim order passed

by the statutory tribunal as unconstitutional as it set side

an individual decision inter partes and therefore, amounted

to a legislative exercise of judicial power. When a

mandamus issued by the Mysore High Court was sought to

be annulled by a legislation, this Court quashed the same

in S.R. Bhagwat v. State of Mysore (1995) 6 SCC 16 on the

ground that it was impermissible legislative exercise.

Setting at naught a decision of the Court without removing

the defect pointed out in the judgment would sound the

death knell of the rule of law. The rule of law would cease

to have any meaning, because then it would be open to the

Government to defy a law and yet to get away with it.50

44. The permissibility of legislative override in this country

should be in accordance with the principles laid down by

this Court in the aforementioned as well as other

judgments, which have been culled out as under:

a) The effect of the judgments of the Court can be nullified

by a legislative act removing the basis of the judgment.

Such law can be retrospective. Retrospective amendment

should be reasonable and not arbitrary and must not be

violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the

Constitution.

b) The test for determining the validity of a validating

legislation is that the judgment pointing out the defect

would not have been passed, if the altered position as

sought to be brought in by the validating statute existed

before the Court at the time of rendering its judgment. In

other words, the defect pointed out should have been cured

such that the basis of the judgement pointing out the

defect is removed.

c) Nullification of mandamus by an enactment would be

impermissible legislative exercise [See: S.R.

Bhagwat (supra)]. Even interim directions cannot be

reversed by a legislative veto [See : Cauvery Water Disputes

Tribunal (supra) and Medical Council of India v. State of

Kerala (2019) 13 SCC 185].

d) Transgression of constitutional limitations and intrusion

into the judicial power by the legislature is violative of the

principle of separation of powers, the rule of law and of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

6.3 In the said decision, this Court struck down and declared

that first proviso to Section 184(1) of the Finance Act,

2017, which provided for 50 years minimum age for

appointment as Chairman or Member as unconstitutional

by observing that the said first proviso to Section 184 (1) is

in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers as the

judgment of this Court in the case of Madras Bar

Association Vs. Union of India & Anr. – MBA III (2017)

7 SCC 369 decided on 27.11.2020, has been frustrated by

an impermissible legislative override.

6.4 Taking into consideration the aforesaid decisions, the High

Court in the impugned judgment and order has rightly

observed and held that Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule

6(9) of the Rules, 2020 which are contrary to the decisions

of this Court in the cases of UPCPBA (supra) and the

Madras Bar Association (supra) are unconstitutional and

arbitrary.

6.5 Even otherwise also we are of the opinion that Rule 6(9)

lacks transparency and it confers uncontrolled discretion

and excessive power to the Selection Committee. Under

Rule 6(9), the Selection Committee is empowered with the

uncontrolled discretionary power to determine its

procedure to recommend candidates to be appointed as

President and Members of the State and District

Commission. The transparency and selection criteria are

absent under Rule 6(9). In absence of transparency in the

matter of appointments of President and Members and in

absence of any criteria on merits the undeserving and

unqualified persons may get appointment which may

frustrate the object and purpose of the Consumer

Protection Act. It cannot be disputed that the Commissions

are empowered with the powers of court and are quasijudicial authorities and empowered to discharge judicial

powers with the adequate powers of the court including

civil and criminal. Therefore, the standards expected from

the members of the tribunal should be as nearly as

possible as applicable to the appointment of judges

exercising such powers. Under Rule 6(9) of Rules, 2020,

the Selection Committee is having power to determine its

own procedure. Such provisions are also giving excessive

and uncontrolled discretionary powers to the Selection

Committee. As rightly observed and held by the High

Court, considering the object on behalf of the Consumer

Protection Act, 2019, such uncontrolled discretion power

to determine its procedure for making its recommendation

for appointment of President and Members of the District

and the State Commissions is arbitrary and unreasonable.

It is always desirable that while making the appointment

as Members of the District Fora and/or the State

Commission there is a need to assess the skill, ability, and

the competency of the candidates before they are

empanelled and recommended to the State Government.

The Rules, 2020 do not contemplate written examination

so as to test the merits of the candidate. In the case of

UPCPBA (supra), this Court expressed deep concern over

the bureaucratic and political interference in process of

appointments.

6.6 At this stage, it is required to be noted that mechanism of

having written examination was confirmed by this Court

which has been removed under the new Rules, 2020.

6.7 At this stage, it is required to be noted that earlier under

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there were Rules, 2017 in

so far as some of the States are concerned and Rules,

2019 so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned,

which provided for a written examination and viva voce,

which was under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6.8 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been repealed and

the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has come into force

w.e.f. 24.07.2020 with a sole intention to provide adequate

safeguards to the consumers and the pecuniary

jurisdiction of the District Fora and State Commissions are

enhanced substantially. However, there is no substantial

change in the scheme with respect to the adjudication of

the consumer disputes. No justification at all is shown to

do away with the written examination while framing the

Rules, 2020 under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, the 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.

7. Now so far as the Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) of the Rules,

2020 are concerned, the High Court has rightly quashed

the said provisions which provided for having a minimum

20 years’ experience for appointment as a Member in State

Commission under Rule 3(2)(b) and having a minimum 15

years’ experience for appointment as a Member in District

Commission under Rule 4(2)(c).

7.1 It is required to be noted that under provision 4(1) of

Rules, 2020, a person who is eligible to be appointed as a

district judge (having minimum experience of 7 years) is

qualified to be appointed as President of the District

Commission but in order to be appointed as a Member,

Section 4(2)(c) mandates a minimum experience of 15

years which is rightly held to be violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution.

7.2 Similarly providing 20 years’ experience under Rule 3(2)(b)

also rightly held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14

of the Constitution. It is required to be noted that under

Section 3(2)(b), a presiding officer of a Court having

experience of 10 years is eligible for becoming President of

the State Commission. Even under Section 3(1) a judge of

the High Court, present or former, shall be qualified for

appointment of the President. As per Article 233 of the

Constitution, a lawyer needs to have only 7 years of

practice as an advocate in High Court. Under the

circumstances to provide 20 years’ experience under Rule

3(2)(b) is rightly held to be unconstitutional, arbitrary and

violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We

are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High

Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the

case of Madras Bar Association (supra) – MBA III, this

Court directed to consider 10 years’ experience, after detail

reasoning.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we

see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court 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,

unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India. The Central Government and the concerned State

Governments have to amend Rules, 2020, more

particularly, Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020, providing that

the Selection Committee shall follow the procedure for

appointment as per Model Rules, 2017 and to make the

appointment of President and Members of the State

Commission and the District Commission on the basis of

the performance in written test consisting of two papers of

100 marks each and 50 marks for viva voce and the

written test consisting of two papers may be as per the

following schemes:

Paper Topics Nature of

test

Max.

mark

Duration

PaperI (a) General

Knowledge and

current affairs

(b) Knowledge of

Constitution of India

various Consumers

related Laws as

indicated in the

Schedule

Objective

Type

100 2 hours

PaperII

(a) One Essay on

topics chosen from

issues on trade and

Descriptive

type

100 3 hours

commerce consumer

related issues or

Public Affairs.

(b) One case study of

a consumer case for

testing the abilities of

analysis and cogent

drafting of orders.

8.1 The Central Government and the concerned State

Governments have also to come with an amendment in the

Rules, 2020 to provide 10 years’ experience to become

eligible for appointment of President and Member of the

State Commission as well as the District Commission

instead of 20 years and 15 years respectively, provided in

Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) which has been struck down

to the extent providing 20 years and 15 years of

experience, respectively. Till the suitable amendments are

made in 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 above, in exercise of powers

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to do

complete justice, we direct that 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 the 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 the District Commissions. We also direct

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India that for

appointment of President and Members of the State

Commission and District Commission, the appointment

shall be made on the basis of performance in written test

consisting of two papers as per the following scheme:

Paper Topics Nature of

test

Max.

mark

Duration

PaperI (a) General

Knowledge and

current affairs

(b) Knowledge of

Constitution of India

various Consumers

related Laws as

indicated in the

Schedule

Objective

Type

100 2 hours

PaperII

(a) One Essay on

topics chosen from

issues on trade and

commerce consumer

related issues or

Public Affairs.

(b) One case study of

a consumer case for

testing the abilities of

analysis and cogent

drafting of orders.

Descriptive

type

100 3 hours

8.3 The qualifying marks in each paper shall be 50 per cent

and there shall be viva voce of 50 marks. Therefore, marks

to be allotted out of 250, which shall consist of a written

test consisting two papers, each of 100 marks and the 50

marks on the basis of viva voce.

Present appeals are disposed of in terms of the above

directions.

…………………………………J.

(M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J.

(M.M. SUNDRESH)

NEW DELHI,

MARCH 03, 2023.

Search This Blog

Indian Constitution

The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Versus Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India