2023 (3) TMI 1379 - SC - Indian Laws

Qualifications for appointment of President and members of the State Commission - Constitutional Validity of Rule 3(2)(b) Rule 4(2)(c) and 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 State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020 - HELD THAT - By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has declared Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) and 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 State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020 as unconstitutional arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2) (c) and Rule 6(9) of Rules 2020 are declared to be unconstitutional. The selection of persons as Presiding Officers and as Members of the fora lacks transparency without a fixed criteria for selection. The Committee has justification proposed that a written test should be conducted to assess the knowledge of persons who apply for posts in the District Fora. Issues of conflict of interest also arise when persons appointed from a local area are appointed to a District Forum in the same area. This Court directed that the State Governments shall frame appropriate Rules in exercise of the rule-making power Under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in accordance with the Final Draft Model Rules submitted by the Union of India. It appears that thereafter many States notified the Consumer Protection (appointment salary allowances and conditions of service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Forum) Rules 2017. Rules 2017 which were adopted provided that in every cases the selection of Members of the District Fora and State Commission shall be on the basis of a written test of two papers (Rules 5 and 7). It appears that even the State of Maharashtra also adopted and approved the model Rules on 24.05.2019 and framed Rules 2019 which had a written examination of 200 marks - the High Court in the impugned judgment and order has rightly observed and held that Rule 3(2)(b) Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules 2020 which are contrary to the decisions of this Court in the cases of UPCPBA 2017 (4) TMI 306 - SUPREME COURT and the Madras Bar Association 2020 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT are unconstitutional and arbitrary. Rule 6(9) lacks transparency and it confers uncontrolled discretion and excessive power to the Selection Committee. Under Rule 6(9) the Selection Committee is empowered with the uncontrolled discretionary power to determine its procedure to recommend candidates to be appointed as President and Members of the State and District Commission. The transparency and selection criteria are absent Under Rule 6(9). In absence of transparency in the matter of appointments of President and Members and in absence of any criteria on merits the undeserving and unqualified persons may get appointment which may frustrate the object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act - It is always desirable that while making the appointment as Members of the District Fora and/or the State Commission there is a need to assess the skill ability and the competency of the candidates before they are empanelled and recommended to the State Government. The Rules 2020 do not contemplate written examination so as to test the merits of the candidate. It is required to be noted that under provision 4(1) of Rules 2020 a person who is eligible to be appointed as a district judge (having minimum experience of 7 years) is qualified to be appointed as President of the District Commission but in order to be appointed as a Member Section 4(2)(c) mandates a minimum experience of 15 years which is rightly held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - to provide 20 years experience Under Rule 3(2)(b) is rightly held to be unconstitutional arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring Rule 3(2)(b) Rule 4(2)(c) and 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 State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020 as arbitrary unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - The qualifying marks in each paper shall be 50 per cent and there shall be viva voce of 50 marks. Therefore marks to be allotted out of 250 which shall consist of a written test consisting two papers each of 100 marks and the 50 marks on the basis of viva voce. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c), and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020.
2. Discretion and power of the Selection Committee under Rule 6(9).
3. Requirement of written examination for appointments.
4. Minimum experience required for appointment as members of State and District Commissions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c), and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision declaring Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c), and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court noted that these rules granted excessive and uncontrolled discretion to the Selection Committee, lacked transparency, and could lead to the appointment of unqualified persons, thus frustrating the objectives of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Discretion and Power of the Selection Committee under Rule 6(9):
Rule 6(9) allowed the Selection Committee to determine its procedure for recommending candidates, which was challenged for providing uncontrolled discretionary power. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that this lack of transparency and criteria could result in political and bureaucratic interference, undermining the integrity of the appointment process. The Court emphasized the need for objective criteria and standards, similar to those for judicial appointments, to ensure the selection of competent candidates.

3. Requirement of Written Examination for Appointments:
The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of written examinations to assess the competence of candidates for judicial functions. The Court referred to previous decisions, including the UPCPBA case, which stressed the importance of written tests to maintain high standards and avoid political and bureaucratic influence. The Court directed the Central and State Governments to amend the rules to include written examinations and viva voce as part of the selection process.

4. Minimum Experience Required for Appointment as Members of State and District Commissions:
The Court found the requirement of 20 years of experience for State Commission members and 15 years for District Commission members to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. It noted that these requirements were inconsistent with the qualifications for judicial appointments under the Constitution, which mandate only seven years of practice for District Judges and ten years for High Court Judges. The Court directed that the experience requirement be reduced to ten years for both State and District Commission members.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, declaring the impugned rules unconstitutional and directing amendments to ensure transparency and merit-based appointments. The Court emphasized the need for written examinations and reduced the experience requirements to align with constitutional standards for judicial appointments. The appeals were disposed of with specific directions for amending the rules and ensuring compliance with the Court's guidelines.