LI Network
Published on: November 18, 2023 at 12:45 IST
The Supreme Court has accepted a special leave petition challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), which declared 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, as invalid.
This rule specified two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee responsible for recommending the appointment of the President and member-judges to the State Consumer Commission and the District Consumer Fora.
The High Court held that the rule diluted the judiciary’s involvement in the selection process and set aside the appointments to the Consumer Foram made by the Maharashtra Government. However, the operation of the judgment was stayed 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, and the State also filed a Special Leave Petition against the High Court order.
The petitioners presented two key arguments before the bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Firstly, they argued that interviews are preceded by a written examination that all candidates must clear. Secondly, unlike other tribunals where the state is a party, consumer forums typically involve private individuals, diminishing the state’s interest in the litigation outcome compared to other tribunals.
The bench acknowledged that the issues raised by the petitioners require further deliberation and scheduled the matter for November 24. The stay granted by the High Court was also extended until the next hearing date.
The High Court had set aside the selection process for Presidents and members of the District and State Commissions, asserting that it deviated from the directions given by the Apex Court in The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Others]
Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Ors. V. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors., Diary No(S). 45299/2023