Summary
The Bombay High Court struck down Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the 2020 Rules under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on appointment of members of State and District Consumer Commissions, which required twenty and fifteen years' experience and let the Selection Committee fix its own procedure, abandoning the written examination in the model rules approved in the UP Consumer Protection Bar Association case. The Supreme Court affirmed: Rule 6(9) confers uncontrolled discretion without transparency on bodies exercising judicial powers and impermissibly overrides earlier decisions, while the experience requirements are arbitrary when a District Judge needs seven years and a High Court Judge ten. Under Article 142, pending amendment, ten years' experience suffices and selection is to be by two written papers of 100 marks each and a 50-mark viva voce.
Issues
- Whether Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, allowing the Selection Committee to determine its own procedure without a written examination, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
- Whether the requirements of twenty and fifteen years' professional experience for members of State and District Commissions under Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) are arbitrary.
Provisions considered
- Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9), Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment ... of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020Rule 6(9) lacks transparency and gives the Selection Committee excessive and uncontrolled discretion over appointments to quasi-judicial bodies exercising civil and criminal powers under Sections 71 and 72 of the 2019 Act; the experience thresholds are arbitrary since a person eligible to be a District Judge after seven years may be President of a District Commission and a presiding officer of ten years may head a State Commission. (¶¶ 6.5, 6.6, 6.8, 7, 7.1, 7.2)
- Articles 14 and 142, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Madras Bar Association, the Rules impermissibly override the mandamus in the UP Consumer Protection Bar Association case approving model rules with a written test; under Article 142 interim qualifications and a written test plus viva voce were directed until the Rules are amended. (¶¶ 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 8, 8.1, 8.3)
Held
- The Court's earlier orders in UP Consumer Protection Bar Association recorded poor quality of non-judicial members and bureaucratic and political interference in selections, and approved model rules providing a written test, which States including Maharashtra adopted; the 2019 Act enlarged pecuniary jurisdiction but did not change the adjudicatory scheme, and no justification was shown for doing away with the written examination. The Government's alternative of guidelines allotting sixty marks to interview was not accepted. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 3.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8)
- The Central and State Governments must amend the Rules to adopt the Model Rules, 2017 procedure of two written papers of 100 marks each and a 50-mark viva voce and to prescribe ten years' experience; until then, persons with a bachelor's degree, ability, integrity and ten years' special knowledge and professional experience in the listed fields are qualified for appointment, and selection shall be on two written papers with fifty per cent qualifying marks each and viva voce of fifty marks, out of a total of 250. (¶¶ 8, 8.1, 8.3)
Result
Appeals disposed of; Bombay High Court judgment dated 14.09.2021 declaring Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the 2020 Rules arbitrary and violative of Article 14 affirmed; Governments directed to amend the Rules, and under Article 142 ten years' experience and selection by two written papers of 100 marks each plus 50-mark viva voce prescribed meanwhile.