10 Years Of Experience To Be Considered For Appointments To The Consumer Commission

Supreme Court Upholds The Center’s Rules While Opening The Door For Attorneys With 10 Years Of Experience To Be Considered For Appointments To The Consumer Commission

On March 3, the Supreme Court ruled that candidates for the positions of president and members of state consumer commissions and district consumer forums must hold a bachelor’s degree and have at least ten years of professional experience in fields such as consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration, etc.

This implies that members of the State and District Consumer Commissions as well as the President may only be appointed if they have practiced law for at least ten years.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) to invalidate the provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, created by the Central Government under section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which eliminated the need for written exams and required a minimum of 20 and 15 years of professional experience for members of State consumer commissions and District forums, respectively.

The Bench observed that Rule 6(9) lacks transparency and gives the Selection Committee unrestrained authority. The Selection Committee is granted discretionary and unrestricted authority under Rule 6(9) to decide how to conduct itself and to suggest candidates for appointments as presidents and members of the State and District Commission. The selection methods are not transparent. It stated that appointments of those who are unfit and undeserving may defeat the Act’s goals.

The Bench acknowledged that the Union Government had attempted to overturn Supreme Court rulings, including the one in the Madras Bar Association case, which was improper.

The following changes to the 2020 Regulation must be made, according to the Bench’s directive to the Central and State Governments.

The new Consumer Protection Rules 2020, which stipulate a minimum professional experience of 20 years and 15 years, respectively, for adjudicating members of State Consumer Commissions and District Forums, had sections that the Bombay High Court had invalidated.

The court also invalidated the clause allowing each state’s selection group to choose its own process for recommending candidates for appointment to the State Government in order of merit.

The ruling relates to the Central Government’s New 2020 Rules formulated under Section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the appointment, eligibility, and removal of members of State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums operating in India.

According to petitions submitted by attorneys Dr. Mahindra Limaye and Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe, Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 6(9) were invalidated because they were unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 by a division court of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor.

The Madras Bar Association (MBA-2020 and MBA-2021) case series, in which the Supreme Court ruled that attorneys with 10 years of expertise or more should be given consideration for appointment as members of tribunals, was cited by the High Court.

Given this, the Court noted that the Regulations represent an effort to get around the Supreme Court’s directives.

News Mania Desk