Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice MM Sundresh
Introduction:
This case concerned the legality and fairness of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, particularly those regulating the appointment, qualification, selection, and tenure of Presidents and Members of the State and District Consumer Commissions. The Supreme Court examined whether the existing rules compromised judicial independence by providing excessive control to the Executive in the appointment process.
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- Consumer Protection Rules, 2020
- Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank, (2019) 6 SCC 689
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (MBA-III and MBA-IV decisions)
- Articles 14, 21, 50 of the Constitution (Judicial independence and separation of powers)
Facts of the Case:
The Bombay High Court had previously invalidated certain provisions 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. Petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
You can also read the blog of Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
The challenge mainly centered on:
- Rule 6(1), which dealt with the composition of the Selection Committee, and
- Rule 10(2), which related to tenure and reappointment provisions.
The High Court relied on previous Supreme Court decisions, including Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (MBA cases), to strike down these rules.
Issues:
- Whether Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules violates judicial independence by giving executive dominance in the selection process.
- Whether the tenure provisions under Rule 10(2) are consistent with the constitutional standards laid down in the MBA-III and Rojer Mathew decisions.
- Whether the requirement of written tests and viva voce for judicial appointments is justified under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
- Argued that:
The executive dominance in the Selection Committee violates the principle of separation of powers. Imposing tests and interviews for the appointment of retired judges was arbitrary and demeaning to their prior judicial service. The Rules should adhere to judicial precedents and provide fixed tenure, transparent reappointment mechanisms, and judicial primacy in appointments.
Contentions of the Respondents :
Defended the existing rules, claiming that: The Selection Committee composition was in line with administrative efficiency. The tests and interviews ensured merit-based appointments even among retired judges and bureaucrats. Some revisions to the rules were already under consideration.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court reaffirmed the importance of judicial independence in appointments to quasi-judicial bodies like consumer forums. Citing Rojer Mathew, MBA-III, and MBA-IV, the Court held:
The majority of the Selection Committee must be from the judiciary.
Written exams and viva voce cannot be imposed on retired judges or those with judicial experience for appointments as Presidents or Judicial Members.
The Court disapproved Rule 6(1) for allowing excessive executive control.
It accepted the Union’s proposal to restrict District Commission President appointments to serving or retired District Judges. The Court accepted the High Court’s reasoning to declare Rule 10(2) partially invalid to the extent it conflicted with the principle of a 5-year fixed tenure.
Conclusion:
The Court issued the following directions:
- Union of India to notify new Rules within 4 months, incorporating:
- Five-year tenure for Presidents and Members (as per Rojer Mathew & MBA cases).
- Majority of Selection Committee to be judiciary members.
- No written test or viva for judicial candidates.
- Written test + viva only for non-judicial members.
- Written exams to be conducted with State Service Commissions.
- District Commission Presidents to be serving/retired District Judges only.
- Union to explore feasibility of permanent Consumer Tribunal/Court with permanent judicial officers and staff. Affidavit to be filed within 3 months.
- All States to complete appointments under new rules within 4 months of notification.
