Supreme Court Posts Pleas Regarding Validity OF Consumer Protection Rules On Appointment Of Members Next Week For Disposal
The Supreme Court (today on May 21), ordered that it will hear a batch of an appeals against the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) which struck down Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, next week. Rule 6 talks about Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation, and removal...
The Supreme Court (today on May 21), ordered that it will hear a batch of an appeals against the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) which struck down Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, next week. Rule 6 talks about 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.
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.
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.
The Batch of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sanjay Karol extended this stay in today's order after being informed about the urgency of the matter.
“Those of the applicants who are service, their services shall not be discontinued. We will hear and dispose of these matters next week. List the matter for hearing on 27th May.,” the Court ordered.
Last year, the Supreme Court had 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, which comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, the petitioners had 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, 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.
It may also be noted that 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 Details: GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO SELUKAR & ORS. v. MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS., Diary No(s). 45299/2023