- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Issues Notice On...
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Petitions Challenging Bombay HC Judgment Striking Down Consumer Protection Rules
Sohini Chowdhury
17 Dec 2021 6:14 AM GMT
The Union Government and the Maharashtra Government approached the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices on the special leave petitions filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) which quashed the provisions of Consumer Protection Rules which excluded lawyers with 10 to 20 years experience from appointments to Consumer Commissions.A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai was considering the special leave petitions filed...
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices on the special leave petitions filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) which quashed the provisions of Consumer Protection Rules which excluded lawyers with 10 to 20 years experience from appointments to Consumer Commissions.
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai was considering the special leave petitions filed by the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment delivered by a division bench of the High Court on September 14 this year.
Attorney General for India KK Venugopal submitted that the Bombay High Court struck down the rules on the basis of the Madras Bar Association judgment of the Supreme Court which held that lawyers with a minimum experience of 10 years should be considered for appointments as members of Tribunals. The AG said that there is a need for stay of the judgment.
"For stay. I will tell your lordships why. The basis of striking down is the judgment of the Madras Bar Association. Consumer Protection Tribunal is not covered by 19 Tribunals in MBA, but it has applied the cap of 10 years for advocates", the AG submitted.
The bench said that it cannot pass an order on interim relief now but will issue notice on the interim application.
Advocate Rahul Chitnis, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that the State has also filed SLP challenging the HC judgment. He also informed that another bench led by Justice SK Kaul has passed directions for the appointment of members in commissions.
"I want to place one more fact, Justice Kaul's bench has restricted this judgment to Bombay saying it is BHC judgment. Otherwise, in all other states, he said the selection will go on without reference to striking down", the Attorney General added.
The bench, while issuing notice, said that it will hear on interim relief in January 2022.
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.
The 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.
It may be noted that another bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Sanjay Kaul, which has passed suo motu directions to States to fill up the vacancies in Consumer Commissions, has exempted Maharashtra from it in view of the High Court judgment.
Cases : The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs versus Dr.Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others SLP(c) 19492/2021, State of Maharashtra versus Dr.Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others SLP(c) 20135/2021, State of Maharahstra versus Vijaykumar Bhima Dhige SLP(c) 19888/2021.
Click Here To Read/Download Order
