SC DIRECTS CENTRE TO ENSURE 5-YEAR TENURE, NO TESTS FOR COMMISSION PRESIDENTS IN CONSUMER FORUM RULES:

On May 21, the Supreme Court issued a series of significant directions to the Central Government, mandating the formulation and notification of new Rules for the selection and appointment of both judicial and non-judicial members to consumer forums across the country. The Court underscored the importance of transparency and consistency in these appointments and specifically directed that the new Rules must include a clear provision stipulating a fixed tenure of five years for all such positions. This move aims to streamline the functioning of consumer forums and enhance the accountability and efficiency of their members.

A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh issued a set of detailed directions to the Union of India concerning the restructuring and regulation of consumer dispute redressal mechanisms. Firstly, the Court directed the Centre to file an affidavit within three months addressing the feasibility of establishing a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of a Consumer Tribunal or a Consumer Court. This proposed forum should consist of permanent staff and Presiding Officers, with the possibility of being headed by sitting Judges. The Court also encouraged the government to consider increasing the strength of these forums to ensure their effective functioning.

Secondly, the Court ordered that the Centre must notify new Rules within four months from the date of the judgment, aligning them with previous Supreme Court rulings such as Rojer Mathew, MBA-III, and MBA-IV. The Rules must include a five-year tenure for appointments and mandate a Selection Committee where judiciary members hold the majority—comprising two judicial members (one of whom shall be Chairperson) and one executive member, with the relevant Secretary included as an ex-officio, non-voting member. The Court further clarified that no written examination or viva voce would be required for judicial appointments, while such assessments would apply only to non-judicial positions. Additionally, examinations must be conducted in consultation with State Service Commissions. The Court also accepted the Centre’s proposal to restrict appointments as President of the District Commission to serving or retired District Judges. Lastly, all States were directed to complete the recruitment process under the new Rules within four months of their notification.

The background of the case is as follows: The appellants challenged the judgment of the Bombay High Court regarding appointments and service-related matters in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The High Court had struck down Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure for Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2020'), citing concerns over judicial independence. Specifically, it found that the Rule allowed for excessive executive influence in the Selection Committee, thereby violating the principles laid down in Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association. The Court also partially invalidated Rule 10(2), which dealt with extending the tenure of members from four to five years or until they reached the age of 65/67, in line with the reasoning in MBA III. In light of the absence of a clear framework for reappointments under the 2020 Rules, the High Court directed that Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules be applied temporarily.