'Only District Judges, Serving/Retired, Can Head District Commissions': Supreme Court Directs Centre To Make New Consumer Forum Rules

The Supreme Court today (May 21) issued several directions, instructing the Centre to notify new Rules governing the selection and appointment of judicial and non-judicial members in consumer forums. The Court emphasized that the new Rules must include a provision specifying a five-year tenure for such appointments.The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and MM Sundresh issued the following directions: "1) 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. 2) In view of the submission made on behalf of the Union of India, we direct the Union of India to notify the new Rules within a period of 4 months from the date of this Judgment, strictly adhering to the following: a. The earlier view of this Court in Rojer Mathew (supra), MBA-III (supra), and MBA-IV (supra), 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. To achieve the same, the Selection Committee shall comprise two members from the Judiciary, one of whom shall be the Chairperson, and a third member from the Executive, all of whom shall have voting rights. However, this shall not preclude the concerned Secretary from being an ex-officio Member of the Selection Committee, without voting rights. The proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules, may be accordingly modified. 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, as recorded by us in Para 72 of this Judgement, 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. 3) Upon notification of the new Rules by the Union of India, all the States are directed to complete the process of recruitment under the same, within a period of 4 months from the date of the notification of the said Rules."Background The appellants challenged the Bombay High Court's decision concerning appointments and service matters in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The High Court struck down 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 (for short, 'the Rules of 2020') for violating judicial independence by allowing executive dominance in the Selection Committee, citing Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association. It also partially invalidated Rule 10(2), extending member tenures from four to five years or until age 65/67, in line with MBA III. Due to the absence of a clear reappointment process, the Court directed the temporary application of Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules. Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Others vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9982/2024 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 603 Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

'Only District Judges, Serving/Retired, Can Head District Commissions': Supreme Court Directs Centre To Make New Consumer Forum Rules

Yash Mittal

The Court directed that there should be no written tests for selection of President of Consumer Commissions

Tags