Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition Against Judgment Allowing Lawyers With 10 Yrs Experience To Be Considered For Consumer Commission Appointments

According to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court that was challenged in the review petition, lawyers with at least 10 years standing are eligible for appointment as President and members of State and District Consumer Commissions.

In March this year, the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) to quash the provisions of Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, framed by Central Government u/s 101 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, which prescribe a minimum professional experience of 20 years and 15 years for adjudicating members to the State consumer commissions and District forums respectively and which did away with the requirement of a written exam for appointment.

Exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice MM Sundresh had directed :

“Till the amendments are made in order to do complete justice under A. 142 we direct that in future a person having Bachelor’s degree from a recognised university and who is a person of ability, integrity standing and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration etc. shall be treated as qualified for appointment as President and member of State and District Commission. We also direct that for appointment the appointment shall be based on the performance in 2 papers. Qualifying marks in the papers shall be 50% and there must be a viva for 50 marks each.”

The Bench had noted that Rule 6(9) lacks transparency and confers uncontrolled discretion to the Selection Committee. Under Rule 6(9) the Selection Committee is conferred with discretionary and uncontrolled power to determine its procedure, to recommend candidates to be appointed as Presidents and members of the State and District Commission. The transparency in selection criteria is absent. It opined undeserving and unqualified may get appointed, which may frustrate the object and purpose of the Act.

With respect to the requirement of written test, the Bench had observed -

“The Commissions are quasi judicial authorities and the standards expected from the Tribunal should be as nearly as possible to the appointment of Judges…There is a need to assess the skill, competency of the candidates before they are empanelled. The Rule 2020 does not contemplate written examinations to assess the merits of candidates.”

The Bench recognised that the Union Government had tried to override the judgments of the Apex Court, including the one in Madras Bar Association, which is not permissible.

It added -

“The mechanism of having written examinations was confirmed by this Court which was removed by the 2020 Rules. No justification is shown to do away with the written examination. The High Court rightly observed that Rule 6(9) is unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.”

On the issue of minimum years of experience, the Bench had opined -

“We considered the validity of Rule 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) provisioning a minimum of 20 and 15 years of experience. We have also held it is not permissible and directed to consider 10 years experience in line with Madras Bar Association. We see no reason to interfere with the reasons provided by the High Court.”

The Bench directed the Central and State Governments to make the following amendments to the 2020 Rule.

“The concerned Governments have to amend 2020 Rules more particularly R. 6(9). The appointment to be made on the basis of the performance in the written test of 2 papers for 100 marks each and 50 marks for viva. They are also to come with an amendment to provide 10 years experience to become eligible to be president and members of State and District Commission instead of 20 and 15 years respectively.”

The Bombay High Court had struck down provisions of the new Consumer Protection Rules 2020, which prescribe a minimum professional experience of 20 years and 15 years for adjudicating members to the State consumer commissions and District forums, respectively.

The High Court had also struck down the provision that gives each state's selection committee the power to determine its own procedure to recommend names for appointment in the order of merit for the State Government to consider. 

A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor had struck down Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 6(9) for being unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 in petitions filed by Advocate Dr Mahindra Limaye and Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe.

The High Court had referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in the series of Madras Bar Association (MBA-2020 and MBA-2021) cases which held that advocates with experience of 10 years should be considered for appointment as members of Tribunals. In the light of this, the High Court had observed that the Rules were an attempt to circumvent Supreme Court's directions.

Case Title: Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs V. Dr Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, Review Petition In Civil Appeal No. 831 of 2023

Click here to read/download order