2004 (12) TMI 728 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether consultation with an Acting Chief Justice is sufficient compliance under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Interpretation of Articles 217 and 223 of the Constitution of India.
3. Validity of the appointment process of the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether consultation with an Acting Chief Justice is sufficient compliance under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act:
The core issue was whether consultation with an Acting Chief Justice fulfills the requirement under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that consultation with the Acting Chief Justice is valid and sufficient. The judgment emphasized that Article 223 of the Constitution allows an Acting Chief Justice to perform all duties of the Chief Justice without any limitation. The court rejected the argument that the Acting Chief Justice could not initiate the process for appointment under Section 16 of the Act, affirming that the Acting Chief Justice has the authority to perform the duties of the Chief Justice, including consultation for appointments.

2. Interpretation of Articles 217 and 223 of the Constitution of India:
The court analyzed Articles 217 and 223 of the Constitution, which pertain to the appointment and duties of High Court Judges and Acting Chief Justices. Article 217 outlines the consultation process for appointing High Court Judges, requiring consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and the Chief Justice of the High Court. Article 223 allows for the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice to perform the duties of the Chief Justice when the position is vacant. The court distinguished between the constitutional requirement of consultation under Article 217 and the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, noting that the latter does not necessitate the same level of consultation as the former.

3. Validity of the appointment process of the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:
The appellants challenged the appointment of Justice Surinder Swaroop as President of the State Commission, arguing that the process was initiated by the State Government rather than the Chief Justice, and that the Acting Chief Justice did not consult the two senior most Judges of the High Court. The court held that while the process should be initiated by the Chief Justice, the Acting Chief Justice's consultation was valid. The court found that the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petition, stating that the consultation process under Section 16 of the Act does not require the same procedure as Article 217 of the Constitution. The court clarified that the Chief Justice or Acting Chief Justice does not need to consult the two senior most Judges for appointments under Section 16 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the appointment process for the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, affirming that consultation with the Acting Chief Justice satisfies the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act. The court distinguished the statutory consultation process from the constitutional requirements under Article 217, emphasizing the sufficiency of the Acting Chief Justice's consultation in this context. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was affirmed.