Bombay HC Can Proceed To Decide Validity Of Consumer Protection Rules : Supreme Court Clarifies
The Supreme Court recently clarified that the suo motu case taken by it to deal with the vacancies in Consumer Commissions is not an impediment to the Bombay High Court in deciding a challenge to the Consumer Protection Rules 2020 framed by the Central Government.A petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) by Advocate Dr.Mahindra Limaye challenging the provisions...
The Supreme Court recently clarified that the suo motu case taken by it to deal with the vacancies in Consumer Commissions is not an impediment to the Bombay High Court in deciding a challenge to the Consumer Protection Rules 2020 framed by the Central Government.
A petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) by Advocate Dr.Mahindra Limaye challenging the provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules 2020 which prescribe a minimum professional experience of 20 years and 15 years for appointment to State Commissions and District Fora respectively. The petitioner contended that exclusion of advocates having minimum 10 years experience from the appointments to Consumer Fora was arbitrary, as the said experience is sufficient for appointment as a High Court judge.
However, the High Court has deferred pronouncement of judgment in the said petition in view of the suo motu case initiated by the Supreme Court to fill up the vacancies in Consumer Commissions. The High Court said that if the new rules prescribing the eligibility criteria for adjudicating members were quashed, the State would find it difficult to implement Supreme Court's directions to fill up vacant posts in Consumer Fora within eight weeks.
In this backdrop, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking a clarification. Disposing of the said application, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed:
"We are only examining filling up of vacancies, infrastructure etc. and all related issues relating to the consumer forums across the country. We are not considering the validity of any rules or statutes. We thus, see no impediment in whatever view the Bench seeks to take on the matter before it."
The Rules
Advocate Dr. Mahindra Limaye, practising lawyer at Nagpur, challenged the vires of the New 2020 Rules framed by Central Government u/s 101 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for appointments, qualifications, eligibility, removal of members of State Consumer Commission, and District Consumer Commissions functioning in India.
The petition questions the vires of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, in particular, it challenges Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6 (8, 9 and 10).
His counsel, Advocate Tushar Mandlekar, argued that the new Rules are illegal, bad in law and needs to be quashed as on the following grounds.
- The requirement of "one woman judge" is done away with.
- Rules exclude the lawyers having 10 to 20 years experience from becoming Members in State Commission and lawyers having experience of 10 to 15 years from becoming Members in District Consumer Commissions in State of Maharashtra. This violates article 14 of the Constitution as lawyers above 10 years of practice would be eligible to be appointed as HC judges.
- There is no requirement of basic knowledge of law to become Member judicial, and any graduate can be appointed without evaluating his merit.
- Under Rule 6(9) of 2020 Rules, the Selection Committee has the power to determine its own procedure. However, such provisions also give excessive power and discretion to the Selection Committee and are arbitrary and unreasonable.
- There is no "written examination" by which the merit of candidates can be evaluated. Although the Supreme Court approved the model rules, 2017 in State of U.P. and Ors.v. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association, which included a written test, the provision was deleted in the final 2020 Rules, the plea adds.
Case Title: In RE: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India v. Union of India and Ors.
Click Here To Read/ Download Order