Bombay High Court Quashes Consumer Protection Rules Excluding Lawyers With 10-20 Years Experience From Appointments To Consumer Commissions

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday struck down provisions of the new Consumer Protection Rules 2020, which prescribe a minimum professional experience of 20 years and 15 years for adjudicating members to the State consumer commissions and District forums, respectively. The court also struck down the provision that gives each state's selection committee the power to determine its own procedure to recommend names for appointment in the order of merit for the State Government to consider. The order pertains to the New 2020 Rules framed by Central Government u/s 101 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for appointments, qualifications, eligibility, removal of members of State Consumer Commission, and District Consumer Forums functioning in India. A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor struck down Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 6(9) for being unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 in petitions filed by Advocate Dr Mahindra Limaye and Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe. Consequently, the court quashed the vacancy notice issued by the Ministry Of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Maharashtra State on February 2, 2021, inviting applications to fill up 33 vacant posts of Members in Maharashtra's commissions as until today the procedure for making the recommendation is not yet determined by the Selection Committee under Rule 6. The court also directed the Union of India to frame new rules within four weeks, considering the Supreme Court's recent directions in their suo motu case to deal with vacancies in consumer commissions. After pronouncement of the order, Assistant Solicitor General UM Aurangabadkar sought a stay on the judgment. The court suspended the decision for two weeks however restrained the State from making any more appointments. The bench clarified that it had not dealt with the appointment of the chairman of the State Commission. Last week, the Supreme Court clarified that the suo motu case taken by it to deal with the vacancies in Consumer Commissions is not an impediment to the Bombay High Court in deciding a challenge to the Consumer Protection Rules 2020 framed by the Central Government.Uncontrolled discretion given to selection committeeThe High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in the series of Madras Bar Association(MBA-2020 and MBA-2021) cases which held that advocates with experience of 10 years should be considered for appointment as members of Tribunals.In the light of this, the Court observed that the Rules are an attempt to circumvent Supreme Court's directions.Also, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had issued directions in the 2017 case State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vrs. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association(UPCPBA Case) for bringing uniformity of rules across the country in regard to the modalities to be followed in appointment and selections of President and Members of the District Forum and State Forum."The Union of India while framing Rules of 2020 under the Act of 2019, ought to have framed the rules in consonance with the directions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, issued in the case of UPCPBA, to cure defects pointed out in the said judgment, which has admittedly not been done. Whereas, under the Rules of 2020, the uncontrolled and uncanalised discretion has been granted to the Selection Committee, which will produce undesirable results and which will be in violation of fundamental rights to equality before law and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that includes a right to have the person's rights adjudicated by a forum which exercises judicial power in an impartial and independent manner, as held in MBA-2021", the Court said in the judgment."..the Union Government has granted complete discretion under the Rules of 2020 to the Selection Committee to determine its own procedure. The ultimate result of the same would be nothing but creating a situation which has been narrated in the case of UPCPBA, which undoubtedly, will again lead to wide variation in standards as well as a great deal of subjective, bureaucratic and political interference, and finally it will result in denial of justice which will be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India", the Court added.Therefore, the Court invalidated Rule 6(9) which empowered the selection committee to decide its own procedure.The Court noted that in the instant case, admittedly no written test was prescribed in the impugned notice for selection of Members of District and State Commissions but, only a viva-voce test. However, during the pendency of the present petition and in the middle of selection process, a decision was taken by the Selection Committee to hold written test for selection, which is contrary to the well-settled principle of law that in the middle of the selection process, rules for selection cannot be changed.In this...

Bombay High Court Quashes Consumer Protection Rules Excluding Lawyers With 10-20 Years Experience From Appointments To Consumer Commissions

Sharmeen Hakim

The Court observed that the impugned Rules were an attempt to circumvent Supreme Court's directions.

Tags