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

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
1
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
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
3
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
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
(c)   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, 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;
(c) Nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State—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.
5
(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,
6
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.
(c) In   the   absence   of   the   appointment   of   competent
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. 
7
(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
8
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
9
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
10
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; 
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
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:­ 
17
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: 
S.
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
18
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. 
19
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
20
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;
(c)  In   the   absence   of   the   appointment   of   competent
candidates, the object of the Consumer Protection Act
is likely to be frustrated; 
21
(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. 
22
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. 
23
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
24
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
25
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
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
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
30
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). 
31
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)
(c) and Rule 6(9) of Rules, 2020 which are declared to be
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
32
(c)   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, 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
33
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
34
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.
35
(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;
36
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.
37
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
38
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:
­
39
“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.
40
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
41
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
42
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
43
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
44
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,
45
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.
46
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
47
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
48
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
s
Duration
Paper­I (a)   General
Knowledge   and
current affairs
(b)   Knowledge   of
Constitution of India
(c)   Knowledge   of
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
49
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
50
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: ­ 
51
Paper Topics Nature   of
test
Max.
mark
s
Duration
Paper­I (a)   General
Knowledge   and
current affairs
(b)   Knowledge   of
Constitution of India
(c)   Knowledge   of
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.
52
Present appeals are disposed of in terms of the above
directions.  
    
…………………………………J.
                (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (M.M. SUNDRESH)
NEW DELHI, 
MARCH 03, 2023.
53

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

Atal Pension Yojana-(APY Chart) | अटल पेंशन योजना