The Supreme Court said on Friday the requirement to clear a written examination, even for retired judges aspiring to be appointed as president and members of state and district consumer dispute redressal commissions, was “far-fetched” and asked the Centre to file its response on the necessity of holding the exam.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to seek instructions on the issue within a week.
Invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the top court had in a 2023 judgement directed that the appointment of the president and members of the state and district consumer commissions shall be made on the basis of the performance of candidates in a written test consisting of two papers.
During the hearing on Friday, the top court said asking a retired judge of a high court or ex-district judge to appear in a written examination defeats the purpose of the consumer protection rules.
It said the track record and judgements of the retired judges are available to the selection committee which can consider those before appointing them to such consumer protection forums.
“This (the exam) is far-fetched and defeats the purpose of the consumer protection rules,” the bench observed.
“In the judgment of this court dated March 3, 2023, a direction was issued under Article 142 of the Constitution that appointments to the posts of president and members of state commission should be made on the basis of written test consisting of two papers. SG Mehta states that he would seek instructions from Union government on the necessity of holding an exam particularly for former judges of HC and judicial officers. We will list this in coming week,” the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said.
The top court was hearing an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court which struck down Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 that prescribed two members from the state bureaucracy and only one from the judiciary on the selection committee that recommends appointment of the president and member-judges to the state and district consumer commissions.
The apex court had in its judgement last year said lawyers and professionals with 10 years of experience will be eligible for appointment as president and members of the state consumer commission and district forums.
It had said the central government and state governments have to come up with an amendment to 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 to provide for 10 years experience to become eligible for appointment as president and member of the state commission and district forums instead of 20 and 15 years, respectively.
The top court had directed that till suitable amendments are made, a person with bachelor’s degree from a recognised university and having ability, integrity and standing, and special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration and economics can qualify for the posts.
Also Read
“Those with similar experience in commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine, shall also be qualified for appointment of the President and members of the State Commission.
“We also direct under Article 142 of the Constitution of India that for appointment of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission, the appointment shall be made on the basis of performance in written test consisting of two papers…, the apex court had said.
The top court had upheld an order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court which set aside certain provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 that govern the appointment of president and members to state and district consumer disputes redressal commissions.
