THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS versus DR. MAHINDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 03-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 289
289
THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
v.
DR. MAHINDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 831 of 2023)
MARCH 03, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
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 – rr.3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 6(9) – Validity
of – Held: rr.3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 6(9) which are contrary to the
decisions of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v.
All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association [2016] 8 SCR
851 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another [2020]
2 SCR 246 are unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 –
rr.3(2)(b) & 4(2)(c) struck down to the extent providing minimum
20 years’ and 15 years’ experience for appointment as a Member in
the State and District Commission, respectively – Central Government
and the concerned State Governments to amend the 2020 Rules –
Till amendments are made, directions issued for appointment of
President and Members of the State Commission and District
Commission – A person having bachelor’s degree from a recognized
University and who is a person of ability, integrity and standing
and having special knowledge and professional experience of not
less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs etc., shall
be treated as qualified for appointment of President and Members
of the State and District Commission – Appointment shall be made
on the basis of performance in written test consisting of two papers
– Qualifying marks in each paper shall be 50% and there shall be
a viva voce of 50 marks – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 –
Consumer Protection Act,1986 – Consumer Protection(Appointment,
Salary, Allowance and Conditions of Service of President and
Members of State Commission and District Forum) Rules, 2017 –
Constitution of India – Art.14, 142.
Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method
of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
and removal of President and Members of State Commission and
District Commission) Rules, 2020 – r.6(9) – Held: Under r.6(9), the
Selection Committee is empowered with uncontrolled discretionary
power to determine its procedure to recommend candidates to be
appointed as President and Members of the State and District
Commission – Transparency and selection criteria are absent –
While making the appointment as Members of the District Fora,
State Commission there is a need to assess the skill, ability, and
competency of the candidates before they are empanelled and
recommended to the State Government – 2020 Rules do not
contemplate written examination to test the merits of the candidate
– Written examination which was confirmed by the Supreme Court
has been removed under the new 2020 Rules – No justification shown
to do away with it – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary,
Allowance and Conditions of Service of President and Members of
State Commission and District Forum) Rules, 2017.
Tribunals – Quasi-judicial authorities, standards expected
from the members – Held: Commissions are quasi-judicial authorities,
therefore, the standards expected from the members of the tribunal
should be as nearly as possible as applicable to the appointment of
judges exercising such powers – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 –
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 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986
– Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowance and
Conditions of Service of President and Members of State Commission
and District Forum) Rules, 2017.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court in the impugned judgment and
order has rightly observed and held that Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c)
and Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020 which are contrary to the
decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others Vs. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association
(UPCPBA) and the Madras Bar Association are unconstitutional
and arbitrary. Even otherwise Rule 6(9) lacks transparency and
it confers uncontrolled discretion a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.