Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (May 21) issued directions to reform the appointment and functioning of Consumer Commissions, while granting interim relief to existing members and ordering the Union of India to explore the possibility of setting up a permanent tribunal system for consumer disputes.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and MM Sundresh directed the Union of India to submit an affidavit within three months regarding the feasibility of establishing a permanent forum for consumer dispute resolution either as a Consumer Tribunal or Consumer Court, which shall comprise permanent judicial and non-judicial members, headed by sitting or retired judges, and equipped with adequate infrastructure and financial resources to ensure its efficiency and independence.

“The Union of India is directed to file an affidavit on the feasibility of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of a consumer tribunal or a consumer court, within a period of three months from today, on the touchstone of a constitutional mandate. Such a forum shall consist of permanent members, including both staff and presiding officers. The Union of India may also consider facilitating sitting judges to head the forum.”, the court ordered.

Further, the Court directed the Union to notify new recruitment rules for appointment to consumer commissions within four months of the judgment. Thereafter, all states are required to conclude fresh recruitment under the revised rules within an additional four-month period, the court said.

“In view of the submissions made by and on behalf of the Union of India, we direct the Union of India to notify the new rules within a period of four months after the judgment, adhering to the following directions, based upon Rojer Mathew's instructions and directions. Upon notifying the new rules, all the states are directed to complete the post-recruitment within a period of four months thereafter.”, the court observed.

Additionally, until the new recruitment rules come into effect, the Court granted interim relief to serving and prospective members by categorizing them into seven distinct groups.

Category 1 includes current members of the State and District Consumer Commissions in Maharashtra, who have been allowed to complete their existing tenures. If their tenure expires before the new appointments are made, they will continue in office until replacements are formally appointed.

Category 2 pertains to members who were previously terminated but remain eligible for reappointment; such individuals may be reconsidered under the forthcoming recruitment rules.

Category 3 covers members appointed before 2021, prior to the Limaye-I judgment. These individuals are entitled to serve their full tenures, and if recruitment is delayed, they may receive appropriate extensions.

Category 4 extends similar protections to judicial members in other states, allowing them to complete their terms and receive extensions where necessary.

Category 5 refers to candidates who were selected but not appointed due to stay orders; the Court directed that they now be appointed and permitted to serve full tenures.

Category 6 includes non-judicial members who successfully cleared selection exams but whose appointments were delayed due to litigation. These individuals must be appointed immediately.

Finally, Category 7 addresses reappointment seekers in other states, who shall be considered under the new rules. While judicial members are exempt from re-examination, non-judicial members must undergo the written examination and interview process once again.

Background

The appellants challenged the Bombay High Court's decision concerning appointments and service matters in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The High Court 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 (for short, 'the Rules of 2020') for violating judicial independence by allowing executive dominance in the Selection Committee, citing Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association. It also partially invalidated Rule 10(2), extending member tenures from four to five years or until age 65/67, in line with MBA III. Due to the absence of a clear reappointment process, the Court directed the temporary application of Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules.

(Story to be updated on uploading of judgment)

Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Others vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9982/2024