Supreme Court directs standards for the appointment of President and Members of the State Commission
On March 3, 2023, the Supreme court directed that in the future “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, administration, economics, commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine, shall be treated as qualified for appointment of President and Members of the State Commission.” Along with these standards, the bench also directed that the appointment of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission should be made on the basis of performance in a written test consisting of two papers, as per Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The qualifying marks in each paper should be 50% and there should be a viva voce of 50 marks. Therefore, marks are to be allotted out of 250, which should consist of a written test consisting of two papers, each of 100 marks and 50 marks on the basis of viva voce. The bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice M.R, Shah thus disposed of the present appeal.
In the Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye case, the present appeal was filed against the impugned order and judgment of the High Court of Judicature Bombay at Nagpur bench at Nagpur. The order stated that Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c), and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 were declared arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. According to Rule 3(2)(b) of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) framed the Rules, 2020, “Person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of the State Commission unless he possesses a bachelor’s degree from a recognized university and is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and has special knowledge and professional experience of not less than twenty years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs and others.”
Also Read: Legal Articles
The above-mentioned rules were challenged before the HC by original writ petition on various grounds. One of them was “Considering the nature of work, the candidate’s competency needs to be tested before being recommended for the appointment to discharge judicial functions. Therefore, the candidates who are being appointed must have a legal background.” – It was also argued on behalf of the original writ petitioners that looking at the judicial functions to be performed by the President and Members of the District and State Commissions constituted under the Act, 2019, the selection without holding written examination, but, only on the basis of viva voce, would result into a selection of unsuitable candidates which will further result in denial of justice.
It was determined that HC considered the historical background of tribalization and the fact that the tribunals were endowed with judicial functions with a duty to decide the matters in a judicious manner. The High Court opined and observed that “the standards expected from the judicial members of the tribunals and standards applied for appointing such members, should be as nearly as possible as applicable to the appointment of judges exercising such powers.” During the hearing, it was submitted that on an overall consideration of the deliberations, it appeared that the conduct of a written test will not be feasible for several handicaps and shall not be the most suitable measure for the purpose of selection. In absence of transparency in the matter of appointments of the President and Members and in absence of any criteria on merits the undeserving and unqualified persons may get appointments which may frustrate the object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the Commissions were empowered with the powers of the Court and were quasi-judicial authorities empowered to discharge judicial powers with the adequate powers of the court including civil and criminal.
Read: SC bench overrules death sentence and sustains conviction of juvenile convict for rape and murder
