Supreme Court Directs Centre To File Affidavit On Feasibility Of Permanent Adjudicatory Forum For Consumer Disputes
The Supreme Court clarified that there shall be no requirement of a written examination followed by a viva voce for selection to the posts of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to file an Affidavit on the feasibility of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of a Consumer Tribunal or a Consumer Court, within a period of 3 months.
The Court directed thus in a batch of numerous Appeals and Review Petitions out of which two sets of Civil Appeals pertained to the Maharashtra State and one pertained to the Telangana State.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice M.M. Sundresh ordered, “The Union of India is directed to file an affidavit on the feasibility of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of a Consumer Tribunal or a Consumer Court, within a period of 3 months from today, on the touchstone of the constitutional mandate. Such a forum shall consist of permanent members, including both staff and the Presiding officers. The Union of India may also consider facilitating sitting Judges to head the fora. The strength may be increased adequately.”
The Bench clarified that there shall be no requirement of a written examination followed by a viva voce for selection to the posts of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission under Rules 3(1), 3(2)(a) and 4(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 [2020 Rules], respectively.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Union of India.
Background
Under the 2020 Rules, the tenure of the Presidents and Members of the State Commission and District Commission, was fixed as 4 years. The Supreme Court in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another (2020) [MBA – III] and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another (2021) [MBA – IV], reiterated the views expressed in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited (2020) to the effect that the tenure of office under the legislations impugned therein, must be a minimum of 5 years. In the first round of litigation, a Writ Petition and a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) were filed before the Bombay High Court, laying a challenge to Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the 2020 Rules. The Division Bench declared the said Rules as unconstitutional. This was challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors. (2023) [Limaye – I]. It was held that the requirement of 20 years and 15 years of experience for eligibility as Non-Judicial members of the State Commission and the members of the District Commission respectively, was arbitrary and that 10 years of experience is sufficient.
Thereafter, a notice was issued by the Maharashtra State inviting applications for the posts of Members of the State Commission and Presidents and Members of the District Commission. Three Writ Petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court, laying a challenge to Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the 2020 Rules, the advertisement, and the notifications. In the meanwhile, the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Amendment Rules, 2023 [2023 Rules] were notified by the Union of India, incorporating the directions issued in Limaye – I. 112 persons including some of the Appellants were appointed to the said posts and consequently, the requests seeking reappointment were rejected by the State. The High Court partly allowed the Petitions and struck down Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the 2020 Rules, finding them to be legally unsustainable, and also quashed the notifications, and the advertisement insofar as Paper II is concerned. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “We may also point out that though provisions for taking action against those who have erred is part of the current legal framework, there is no clear mechanism available, similar to the one provided for under Article 227 of the Constitution. … At this juncture, we deem it fit to suggest that the Union of India may consider increasing the strength of Consumer fora at all levels.”
The Court held that the Review Petitions seeking to clarify the directions issued in Limaye - I stand allowed to the extent that there shall be no requirement of a written examination followed by a viva voce for selection to the posts.
“Upon a perusal of the Impugned Order - I, we find that the decision of the High Court of Bombay, in striking down Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules and the consequent notifications, cannot be found fault with. Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules, which provides for the composition of the Selection Committee, has been rightly struck down, placing reliance upon the doctrine of separation of powers and earlier decisions of this Court in Rojer Mathew (supra), MBA - III (supra) and MBA - IV (supra), as the composition of the Selection Committee as per the said Rule indicates executive dominance. The setting aside of the notifications is merely consequential”, it remarked.
The Court further said that the striking down of Rule 10(2) of the 2020 Rules as invalid, with respect to the term of office of the President of the District Commission, and Members of the State and District Commissions, can also not be found fault with, in light of the settled position of law, on the aspect of tenure of office in special fora.
“Before we proceed with the next aspect, we may note that most of the writ petitioners before the High Court of Bombay underwent the impugned selection process. Having participated in the selection process, it was not open for them to have continued to challenge the same. To put it differently, the writ petitioners before the High Court of Bombay would not have continued to press the reliefs sought for, had they been selected. One cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time”, it added.
The Court also noted that the candidates merely participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement made by the State and thus, their participation in the selection process was bona fide and genuine.
“As already held by us, Paper II is valid. Therefore, in the absence of any proof that the selection process was tainted, appointments made pursuant to the same, are upheld. … we make it clear that all persons seeking reappointment can be considered for the same under the new Rules proposed to be notified by the Union of India. We deem it fit to mention that in a tenure-based post, there is no vested right to seek reappointment, but only a limited one to seek consideration under the relevant provisions. Such consideration is subject to the satisfaction of the Selection Committee, as per the prevalent Rules. Thus, the persons seeking reappointment can only be considered after the new Rules are notified”, it clarified.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the consideration for reappointment under the new Rules can be made, subject to the satisfaction of the Selection Committee, qua the posts of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission, while for Non-Judicial Members of the State Commissions and Members of the District Commissions, it would depend upon the eligibility and qualification that shall be fixed by the Union of India under the new Rules, subject to the condition that a written examination followed by a viva voce must be conducted.
“… the writ petitions pending before the High Court of Bombay, challenging the termination order dated 06.10.2023 and seeking reappointment on the ground of not being required to give the written examination followed by a viva voce, will have to be decided in terms of this judgment and larger principles of law”, it added.
Court’s Directions
The Court directed the Union of India to notify the new Rules within a period of 4 months, strictly adhering to the following –
a. The earlier view of the Court in the cases of Rojer Mathew, MBA – III, and MBA - IV, with respect to the tenure of office being five years, being both logical and necessary, must be incorporated in the new Rules to be notified.
b. The composition of the Selection Committee shall be such that the members from the Judiciary must constitute the majority.
c. No written examination, followed by a viva voce, shall be required for appointment and reappointment to the posts of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission.
d. A written examination followed by a viva voce shall be required only for appointment and reappointment to the posts of Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission and Members of the District Commission.
e. The written examination for appointments to the State and District Commissions shall be conducted in consultation with the respective State Service Commissions.
f. The proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 4(1) of the 2020 Rules, that the qualification for appointment to the post of President of the District Commission, shall be restricted to either a serving or a retired District Judge, stands accepted.
The Court further ordered that upon notification of the new Rules by the Union of India, all the States shall complete the process of recruitment under the same, within a period of 4 months.
“We make it clear that for all those appointments which have been allowed to continue vide this Judgment, the tenure shall be a period of 4 years. Such persons shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of this Judgment qua a five-year tenure, subject to the directions issued hereinabove. We also make it clear that this Judgment shall apply prospectively, except to the extent indicated in the directions hereinabove”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals and Petitions, set aside the impugned Order to an extent, and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Ors. v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 752)
Appearance:
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG Aishwarya, Senior Advocate & AAG Amit Anand Tiwari, AORs Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Anju Thomas, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Astha Sharma, Sachin Shanmukham Pujari, Amrish Kumar, Devina Sehgal, Purnima Krishna, Pai Amit, Sakshi Kakkar, Chitranshul A. Sinha, Anandh Kannan N., P.D. Sharma, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Sudhir Naagar, Advocates Raman Yadav, Chitvan Singhal, Shraddha Deshmukh, Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Kartikay Aggarwal, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Somvir Singh Deswal, Abhishek Deswal, Neeraj Singh, Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, Manoj Kumar, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Sneha Botwe, Shakti Singh, S. Uday Bhanu, Yatharth Kansal, Krishna M. Singh, Deepti Singh, Anil C Nishani, Jyoti Mishra, Sonia Mathur, Chinmayee Chandra, Siddhant Kohli, Mantika Haryani, Muskan Surana, Panistha Bhatt, and Tejas Fadnavis.
