Nagpur/New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday extended the terms of the President and Members of the Maharashtra State Commission as well as the District Commissions, formed under the Consumer Protection Act, who are due to retire shortly, till March 1, 2023.
A Bench of Justice M R Shah and M M Sundresh passed the interim order after it was informed by counsel for the respondents Dr Tishar Mandlekar that many members of the Consumer Forums in Maharashtra were due to retire in January/February 2023. The Court wanted to ensure that the litigants are not troubled in any way owing to this.
The Supreme Court was hearing special leave petitions filed against the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court that quashed certain provisions of Consumer Protection Rules, excluding lawyers with 10 to 20 years of experience from appointments to Consumer Commissions.
The Top Court has on last date directed the Attorney General to come up with Rules and Regulations for selection of the candidates to be appointed as Members and President in State/District Commissions. When the matter was taken up for hearing on December 8, the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani informed that the Union Government cannot consider conducting examinations in the selection process for various reasons. The Supreme Court immediately rejected this approach of the Union Government and said that the Government should seriously consider having examinations for selection of posts to have fairness and transparency in appointments.
The AG said that the Central Government is currently in touch with the states for deliberations and would come back with a final proposal regarding rules on the appointment of persons to the Consumer Forums and sought the adjournment. After being pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that many consumer commissions in the State of Maharashtra will be closed due to vacancies, in the next two months, the Supreme Court issued interim directions……
“In the meantime, by way of an interim order, it is directed that wherever the post of President and members of the State Commission or the District Commission are vacant due to respective President or Members’ term of tenure coming to an end, they shall be continued up to March 1, 2023, to see that the Tribunals continue to function and there is no inconvenience to the litigants. This interim relief is limited only to Maharashtra”, the Court ordered.
The Supreme Court opined that the selection should not be left only with the selection committee. The Bench then suggested that, having better eligibility criteria with regard to the appointment of persons to the Commissions under the Act along with “examination” will make the appointments fairer.
The counsel for the respondents Dr Tushar Mandlekar submitted that over a year was already invested into making the Model Draft Rules on the subject, which was even approved by the Court in UP BAR CASE under CP Act 1986. The Model Rules comprising examination were brought into force by all the states after the directions were given by the Supreme Court, hence it was easier to decide the selection on the basis of “merit”. The UOI has reversed the situation by “removing the said Model Rules” under new Consumer Protection Act 2019.
It may be noted that the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, 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 Court also struck down the provision that gives each state’s selection committee the power to determine its procedure to recommend names for appointment in the order of merit for the State Government to consider.
The order pertains to the New 2020 Rules framed by Central Government u/s 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for appointments, qualifications, eligibility, removal of members of the State Consumer Commission, and District Consumer Forums functioning in India.
A Division Bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor struck down Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 6(9) for being unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 in petitions filed by Advocates Dr Mahindra Limaye and Vijaykumar Dighe. The High Court 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.
The High Court has held that there is no “written examination” by which merit of candidates can be evaluated, whereas the Supreme Court had directed the government to prepare Model Rules in State of UP vs UP Consumer Protection Bar Association in Civil Appeal No:-2740 of 2007 decided on 11-09-2018.
In light of this, the Supreme Court observed that the New Rules 2020 are an attempt to circumvent Supreme Court’s directions and hence cannot be sustained in present form.
Case Title: The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs versus Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others SLP(c) 19492/2021, State of Maharashtra versus Dr.Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others SLP(c) 20135/2021, State of Maharashtra versus Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe SLP(c) 19888/2021.
Attorney General of India Adv. Venkatramani argued for the Union of India. Adv Siddharth Dharmadhikari appeared for State of Maharashtra. Dr. Tushar Mandlekar assisted by Adv Mantika Hariyani appeared for original petitioner Dr. Mahindra Limaye. Adv. Dr. Uday Warunjkar (Mumbai) appeared for Vijay Dighe.
