Amend Consumer Protection Rules On Appointment Process Of Commission Members Within 3 Months : Supreme Court To Centre, States

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, observed that the direction in Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr.Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye And Ors. that, the Central and State Governments are required to make certain amendments to the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 pertaining to the appointment process at the Consumer Dispute fora is to be carried out on an urgent basis, preferably within 3 months’ time. A Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Aravind Kumar passed the directions in a public interest litigation challenging the inaction of the Governments in appointing President, Members and Staff of District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions across the country. It noted that the recent judgment in Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr.Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye And Ors. has an impact on the constitutional validity of certain rules concerning the appointment process, which might be relevant to the present case. In Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)to quash the provisions of Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, framed by Central Government u/s 101 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, which prescribe a minimum professional experience of 20 years and 15 years for adjudicating members to the State consumer commissions and District forums respectively and which did away with the requirement of a written exam for appointment. The judgment held that persons having ten years of professional experience should be considered eligible for appointment as members of Consumer Commissions.It mandated that the future appointments to be done in compliance with the modified rules. In view of the same it directed the States and the Centre to modify their rules as per the order. The said judgment also had issued directions relating to selection process, by mandating a written exam.In today's hearing, Senior Advocate, Gopal Sankaranarayanan (Amicus Curiae), informed the bench about this judgment. “The Central Government and State Governments have been directed to amend rules for the appointment process and we expect the needful to be done on an urgent basis, preferably within 3 months’ time.”, the bench then noted.Mediation Cells The Amicus Curiae, Gopal Sankaranarayanan apprised the Bench that 23 states have notified and set up Mediation Cells for which 1 month’s time was granted; 7 states have notified and set up but empanelment was not done. The Bench noted that it expected the remaining process to be completed at the earliest on an urgent basis. It further observed - “Establishment of mediation cells is still under process in the UT of J&K, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman And Diu and Ladakh. We expect the States who have not complied yet to do so in 1 month from today.”The Counsel appearing for the NCT of Delhi informed the Bench that in Delhi there is a Dispute Resolution Society which takes care of the need of mediation in 11 centres. At present the issue of whether the DDRS can take care of consumer disputes as well is pending before the Delhi High Court in a writ petition. However, the Bench indicated that in the interim there should be a mediation mechanism for consumer disputes in NCT of Delhi. Utilisation CertificateOn the last date of hearing, the Court had marked three States (West Bengal, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) which were responsible for 46% of the total un-utilised funds. On Tuesday, the Amicus informed the Bench that as on 06.03.2023, State of Uttar Pradesh has used INR 36.05 crore out of the un-utilised funds of INR 53.55 crore. The Senior Counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal and Rajasthan submitted that the respective States have also substantially utilised the un-utilised funds. However, since their affidavits were not on record, the Bench noted - “State of Rajasthan submits that something was filed yesterday which shows decline in utilisation certificate. Insofar as the State of West Bengal is concerned it is submitted….10% balance remains from the original amount. The aforesaid may be looked into…”Presidents of State Commission Chairperson To be Designated as Head of the DepartmentBy way of the last order, the Bench noted that some of the Presidents had not been notified as Head of the Department and granted one month’s time to the concerned States to take necessary steps. On Tuesday, the Bench was informed that 13 States were in non-compliance of the said direction. Accordingly, the Bench granted another 4 weeks’ time to comply with the order, failing which the Secretaries of the respective States would be present before the Court on the next date of hearing. Presidents of the State Commissions As Disciplinary Authority On the last occasion, the Apex Court had directed that the States comply with the mandate of notifying the President of the State Commission as the disciplinary authority qua the staff of the Commission. That Amicus apprised the Bench that 19...

Amend Consumer Protection Rules On Appointment Process Of Commission Members Within 3 Months : Supreme Court To Centre, States

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags