Is Consumer Protection Rule Invalid For Allowing More Govt Representation In Selection Committee For Forum Members? Supreme Court To Consider
The Supreme Court has admitted a special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) which struck down Rule 6(1) of the 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,...
The Supreme Court has admitted a special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) which struck down Rule 6(1) of the 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 appointment of the President and member-judges to the State Consumer Commission and the District Consumer Fora. The High Court was of the view that the Rule diluted the involvement of the judiciary in the selection process. The High Court also set aside the appointments to the Consumer Fora made by the Maharashtra Government, however stayed the operation of the judgment for four weeks from October 20.
On November 10, the Supreme Court issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by some of the appointees. The Court was told that the State has also filed a SLP against the High Court order.
Before the Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, 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 state is involved as a party, in consumer forums, cases usually involve private individuals. Thus, State has no interest in outcome of litigation as compared to cases in other tribunals.
"The issues which have been raised by the petitioner would require further deliberation", the bench observed while posting the matter to November 24. The bench also extended the stay granted by the High Court till the next posting date.
The High Court had set aside the selection process for Presidents and members of the District and State Commissions on the ground that it was done in deviation from the directions passed by the Apex Court in The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs V. Dr.Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Others [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161].
Case Title: GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO SELUKAR & ORS. v. MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS., Diary No(s). 45299/2023