| Headnote |
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 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. |
