'Can't Expect Ex-HC Judge To Write Exam' : Supreme Court Relaxes Condition Of Written Test To Appoint State Consumer Commission President

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra observed in the order : 

“It is conceded on both sides that no written test would be either feasible or practicable for the appointment of the president of the State Commission for which only a former HC judge can be appointed. Hence, so far as the post of President of the State Consumer Dispute Commission is concerned, we direct that the requirement of holding written examination and viva voce in terms envisaged shall stand relaxed for the president. It is clarified that appointment to the office of president of State commission will be made subject to the consultation with and concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.”

CJI orally said during the hearing that a retired High Court judge can't be expected to sit for a written exam.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah & MM Sundresh, in March 2023 laid that the appointment of President and Members of the State and District Commissions shall be made based on their performance in a written test consisting of two papers of 100 marks each on topics of General Knowledge and current affairs; Knowledge of the Constitution of India; Knowledge of various Consumer Laws (Paper I) and 1 written essay on issues of trade and commerce/ public affair as well as one case study (Paper II). 

Earlier, the Chief Justice of India had agreed with the reservations expressed by the Union Government about this condition for the written test. "No respectable judge, who has self-respect would appear in an examination where his General Knowledge, Knowledge of Constitutional Law, and his ability to draft orders would be tested," Solicitor General had submitted in the previous hearing. CJI agreed that the condition seemed "far-fetched".

Today, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the bench that the Union has drafted model rules for the appointments of the Consumer Commission but the direction in the earlier judgment is coming in its way. She added that the review petition filed against the previous judgment was also dismissed.

Even though the condition for a written test for the President of the State Commission has been relaxed, as regards the President of the District Consumer Fora, it has been retained.

“In the District Fora, it's not just District Judges who are eligible for appointment, there are district judges or any person who is qualified to be a district judge, which in this case could be an advocate having 7 years standing experience. Now to say that in the selection process of the District Fora will not have any written test, will mean a backdoor entry to anyone who is an advocate," CJI said.

The Court held that the selection committee must align with the established judgments, ensuring fairness in the appointment procedure. It was suggested during the hearing that the selection committee for the District Fora should include the Chief Justice of the High Court or their nominee, the President of the State Commission, the Law Secretary, and the Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs.

“We are of the considered view that it is necessary to ensure that the selection process is objective and transparent. We hold that the selection committee must be brought in conformity with the judgements of this court which hold the field.”

These developments took place while the bench was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union Government against a Bombay High Court's judgment of striking down Rule 6(1) Of Consumer Protection Rules 2020.

CJI's Suggestion on Model Rules

The CJI suggested that certain model rules can be framed which could be subjected to the approval of this Court as it would not be reasonable to leave it in the state administrative domain.

He opined, “You know the danger of leaving this to the state is that many states will take this into their own hands and there will be just unriddled discretion”

Additional Solicitor General Bhati agreeably took note of the same.

In the dictated order, the bench noted, "Union has proposed to bring amendments to the rules governing the appointment of members to the state commission under Consumer Protection Rules 2020."

Background

The present SLP arise from the October 2023 judgment of the Bombay High Court quashing Rule 6(1) of the of Consumer Protection((Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. The quashed Rule prescribed two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee that recommends the appointment of the President and member judges to the State Consumer Commission and the District Consumer Fora.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners raised two primary points.

Firstly, the interviews are proceeded by a written examination which has to be cleared by all candidates. Secondly, unlike other tribunals where the state is involved as a party, in consumer forums, cases usually involve private individuals. Thus, the State has no interest in the outcome of litigation as compared to cases in other tribunals.

The State Government made appointments on October 5, 2023, after the High Court reserved its judgment on September 1, 2023, but before officially pronouncing it on October 20, 2023. As the individuals currently in their roles would be affected by the High Court's judgment, it had been directed that the temporary stay granted by the High Court would persist until November 24, 2023. On subsequent hearings, the stay was extended from time to time.

Case Details : GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO SELUKAR & ORS. v. MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS., Diary No(s). 45299/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order