9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1499 - HC - Indian LawsViolation of principle of proportionality - criteria adopted for selection of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in various judgments explicitly held that tribunals have been established with the object of discharging quasi-judicial duties by acting judicially which differentiates them from other administrative bodies. A tribunal is neither a Court nor an executive body, but they have an obligation to act judicially. Tribunals are endowed with the judicial functions as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions. As a quasi-judicial body, the Tribunal performs the judicial functions for deciding the matters in a judicious manner. It is not bound by law to observe all the technicalities, complexities, refinement, discrimination and restrictions that are applicable to the Courts of record in conducting trials, but at the same time, a tribunal is required to look at all matters from the standpoint of substance as well as form and be certain that the hearing is conducted and the matter is disposed of with fairness, honesty, and impartiality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ROJER MATHEW VERSUS SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. OTHERS 2019 (11) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT has observed that the delay and backlog in the administration of justice is of paramount concern for any country governed by the rule of law. In our present judicial set up, disputes often take many decades to attain finality, travelling across a series of lower Courts to High Court and ending with an inevitable approach to the Supreme Court. Such Crawling pace of justice delivery system only aggravates the misery of affected parties. It is further observed that it would, however, be wrong to place the blame of such delay squarely on the judiciary, an empirical examination of pending cases clearly demonstrates that the ratio of judges against the Country's population is one of the lowest in the world and the manpower (support staff) and infrastructure provided is dismal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L. CHANDRA KUMAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT has observed that the numerous Tribunals with lack of uniformity in the matter of qualification, appointments, tenure and service conditions is causing the major concern in effective working of the present Tribunal system. Admittedly, in this case, neither the Union of India nor the State Government in their respective replies, have come up with a case or have pointed out that, after the enactment of Act of 2019 and Rules of 2020, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UPCPBA, have become non-operative or in-effective, relating to the need for having uniformity of rules across the country in regard to the modalities to be followed, ensuring that persons appointed fulfill the qualification prescribed, owing to any valid and justifiable reason - it is amply clear that there is no change in legislative scheme or performance of judicial function of the State Commission or District Commission, constituted under the Act of 2019, as they were performing under the Act of 1986. Resultantly, we have no hesitation to hold that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UPCPBA 2017 (4) TMI 306 - SUPREME COURT , for having uniformity across the country in standards, selection and appointment of President and Members on Fora, are equally binding with full force, even after the enactment of the Act of 2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of UPCPBA, has given sufficient reasons to have uniformity across the country as regards standards and modalities in appointments of Presidents and Members of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, under the Act of 1986. The Union of India while framing Rules of 2020 under the Act of 2019, ought to have framed the rules in consonance with the directions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, issued in the case of UPCPBA, to cure defects pointed out in the said judgment, which has admittedly not been done. It is made clear that Judicial Office is essentially a public trust and therefore, it is expected that a judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and shall possess several qualities including legal expertise, ability to handle cases, proper personal conduct and ethical behaviour and shall ensure impartiality, fairness and reasonableness in consideration. Whereas the technical member ensures the availability of expertise and experience related to the field of adjudication for which the Special Tribunal is created. In the case in hand admittedly no written test was prescribed in the impugned notice for selection of Members of District and State Commissions but, only a viva-voce test. However, during the pendency of the present petition and in the middle of selection process, a decision was taken by the Selection Committee to hold written test for selection, which is contrary to the well settled principle of law that in the middle of the selection process, rules for selection cannot be changed. There are no hesitation to hold that Sub Rule (9) of Rule 6 of Rules of 2020, framed under the Act of 2019, is ultra vires, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules of 2020 prescribing a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Commission, are unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation, and Removal of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. 2. Legality of Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules, 2020. 3. Validity of the vacancy notice dated 2nd February 2021. 4. Compliance with the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous judgments. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Legality of Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020: The petitioners challenged Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules, arguing it granted the Selection Committee excessive discretion to determine its procedure for recommending appointments, contravening the Supreme Court's directives in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vrs. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association (UPCPBA). The Court found that the rule allowed for significant subjectivity and potential bureaucratic and political interference, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that the lack of uniformity and transparency in the selection process could result in the selection of unsuitable candidates, thereby denying justice. Consequently, Rule 6(9) was declared ultra vires and unconstitutional. 2. Legality of Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules, 2020: Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) required 20 years of experience for State Commission members and 15 years for District Commission members. The petitioners contended these requirements were contrary to the Supreme Court's directives in the cases of Madras Bar Association Vrs. Union of India (MBA-2020) and UPCPBA, which prescribed a minimum of 10 years of experience. The Court agreed, stating that the excessive experience requirements were arbitrary, illegal, and violated the principle of equality before the law. The Court thus declared these rules unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. Validity of the Vacancy Notice dated 2nd February 2021: The petitioners argued that the vacancy notice issued for the appointment of members of the State and District Commissions was arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court found merit in this contention, noting that the selection process lacked the necessary written examination and relied solely on viva voce, which could lead to the selection of unqualified candidates. The Court quashed the vacancy notice and cancelled the ongoing selection process, directing that a fresh process be initiated in accordance with amended rules. 4. Compliance with Supreme Court Directives: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Supreme Court's directives for uniformity and transparency in the selection process. It noted that the Union of India and State Governments had not provided any justification for deviating from these directives. The Court reiterated that the principles laid down in the UPCPBA and MBA-2020 judgments were still applicable and binding, even after the enactment of the Act of 2019. Order: The Court allowed the Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2021 and partly allowed Writ Petition No. 1096/2021. It declared Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 6(9) of the Rules of 2020 unconstitutional and quashed the vacancy notice dated 2nd February 2021. The Union of India was directed to amend the rules within four weeks, and a fresh selection process was ordered to be initiated in accordance with the amended rules. The Court refrained from addressing the validity of the appointment of the President of the State Commission, Maharashtra, as it was not challenged in the petitions. The judgment was kept in abeyance for two weeks to allow the Union of India to take necessary steps, with a directive that no appointments be made during this period unless otherwise directed by the Supreme Court.
|
