Consider Permanent Forum For Consumer Disputes With Sitting Judges; Frame New Rules On Appointments : Supreme Court To Union

In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (May 21) issued directions to reform the appointment and functioning of Consumer Commissions, while granting interim relief to existing members and ordering the Union of India to explore the possibility of setting up a permanent tribunal system for consumer disputes. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and MM Sundresh directed the Union of India to submit an affidavit within three months regarding the feasibility of establishing a permanent forum for consumer dispute resolution either as a Consumer Tribunal or Consumer Court, which shall comprise permanent judicial and non-judicial members, headed by sitting or retired judges, and equipped with adequate infrastructure and financial resources to ensure its efficiency and independence. "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 Court ordered.Explaining the reason behind such a suggestion, the Court observed :"Since the essence of consumerism is embedded within the Constitution, there is absolutely no reason to fill up the Consumer fora with tenure- based offices for the Staff, Members and Presidents. While we leave it to the wisdom of the Union of India to revamp the existing structure with holistic changes, we would only implore upon it, to appreciate the pressing need for a permanent structure. Consumer fora can be given permanency through permanent staff and officers, including Presidents and Members at different levels.The security of tenure attached to an office administering justice, enhances its efficiency and functionality. Any person appointed to an office with a fixed tenure would not be as motivated as one appointed on a permanent basis. Impermanence would affect the quality of decisions and thus, cause injury to consumers. A consumer is ideally expected to get a qualitative and timely decision from the concerned Consumer forum. Such a decision is the best advertisement for the concept of consumerism. We feel that the time has come to effect a change in mindset qua revamping the tenure of office in Consumer fora."Further, the Court directed the Union to notify new recruitment rules for appointment to consumer commissions within four months of the judgment. Thereafter, all states are required to conclude fresh recruitment under the revised rules within an additional four-month period, the court said. “In view of the submissions made by and on behalf of the Union of India, we direct the Union of India to notify the new rules within a period of four months after the judgment, adhering to the following directions, based upon Rojer Mathew's instructions and directions. Upon notifying the new rules, all the states are directed to complete the post-recruitment within a period of four months thereafter.”, the court observed. The conditions of the new rules are specified here.Additionally, until the new recruitment rules come into effect, the Court granted interim relief to serving and prospective members by categorizing them into seven distinct groups. Category 1 includes current members of the State and District Consumer Commissions in Maharashtra, who have been allowed to complete their existing tenures. If their tenure expires before the new appointments are made, they will continue in office until replacements are formally appointed. Category 2 pertains to members who were previously terminated but remain eligible for reappointment; such individuals may be reconsidered under the forthcoming recruitment rules. Category 3 covers members appointed before 2021, prior to the Limaye-I judgment. These individuals are entitled to serve their full tenures, and if recruitment is delayed, they may receive appropriate extensions. Category 4 extends similar protections to judicial members in other states, allowing them to complete their terms and receive extensions where necessary. Category 5 refers to candidates who were selected but not appointed due to stay orders; the Court directed that they now be appointed and permitted to serve full tenures. Category 6 includes non-judicial members who successfully cleared selection exams but whose appointments were delayed due to litigation. These individuals must be appointed immediately. Finally, Category 7 addresses reappointment seekers in other states, who shall be considered under the new rules. While judicial members are exempt from re-examination, non-judicial members must undergo the written examination and interview process once again. Background The appellants challenged the...

Consider Permanent Forum For Consumer Disputes With Sitting Judges; Frame New Rules On Appointments : Supreme Court To Union

Yash Mittal

Tags