The Supreme Court Friday said lawyers and professionals with
10 years of experience will be eligible for appointment as President and member
of the state consumer commission and district forums.
The apex court said the Central government and the state
governments concerned have to come with an amendment in the Consumer Protection
(Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of
appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members
of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 to provide for 10
years' experience to become eligible for appointment as President and member of
the state commission and district forums instead of 20 years and 15 years
respectively.
A bench of Justices M R Shah and M M Sundresh, in exercise of powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, directed that
till suitable amendments are made, a person with bachelor's degree from a
recognised university and having ability, integrity and standing, and special
knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer
affairs, law, public affairs, administration and economics can qualify for the
posts,
Those with similar experience in commerce, industry, finance,
management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine, shall also be
qualified for appointment of the President and members of the State Commission.
We also direct under Article 142 of the Constitution of India that
for appointment of President and Members of the State Commission and District
Commission, the appointment shall be made on the basis of performance in
written test consisting of two papers..., the bench said.
The top court upheld an order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay
High Court which had set aside certain provisions of the Consumer Protection
Rules, 2020 that govern appointment of President and members to State and
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions.
The Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs and State of Maharashtra
challenged the high court's judgment before the Supreme Court.
The apex court said the high court was right in striking down the
relevant rules.
"As per Article 233 of the Constitution, a lawyer needs to
have only 7 years of practice as an advocate in High Court. Under the
circumstances to provide 20 years' experience under Rule 3(2)(b) is rightly
held to be unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
High Court," it said.
The apex court said it was of the opinion that Rule 6(9) lacks
transparency and it confers uncontrolled discretion and excessive power to the
Selection Committee.
Under Rule 6(9), the Selection Committee is empowered with the
uncontrolled discretionary power to determine its procedure to recommend
candidates to be appointed as President and Members of the State and District
Commission. The transparency and selection criteria are absent under Rule 6(9).
In absence of transparency in the matter of appointments of
President and Members and in absence of any criteria on merits the undeserving
and unqualified persons may get appointment which may frustrate the object and
purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, it said.
The bench said it cannot be disputed that the commissions are
empowered with the powers of court and are quasi judicial authorities. They
empowered to discharge judicial duties with the adequate powers of the court
including civil and criminal.
Therefore, the standards expected from the members of the tribunal
should be as nearly as possible as applicable to the appointment of judges
exercising such powers, it said.