Bombay HC overturns consumer protection rules that bar lawyers with 10-20 years of experience

Bombay HC overturns consumer protection rules that bar lawyers with 10-20 years of experience from serving at consumer commissions

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday threw down portions of the new Consumer Protection Rules 2020, which require adjudicating members of the State consumer commissions and District forums to have a minimum professional experience of 20 years and 15 years, respectively.

The section allowing each state’s selection committee to set its own approach for recommending candidates for appointment in order of merit for the State Government to consider was also ruled down by the court.

The order relates to the Central Government‘s New 2020 Rules issued under Section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for appointments, qualifications, eligibility, and removal of members of State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums operating in India.

In petitions submitted by Advocate Dr Mahindra Limaye and Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe, a division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor knocked down Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 6(9) as unconstitutional and violating Article 14 in their entirety.

As a result, the court quashed the vacancy notice issued by the Maharashtra State Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies, and Consumer Protection on February 2, 2021, inviting applications to fill 33 vacant posts of Members in Maharashtra’s commissions, because the Selection Committee has yet to determine the procedure for making the recommendation under Rule 6.

In light of the Supreme Court‘s recent directives in their suo motu case to deal with vacancies in consumer commissions, the court also ordered the Union of India to create new guidelines within four weeks.

Assistant Solicitor General UM Aurangabadkar sought a stay of the judgement after it was issued. The ruling was temporarily stayed by the court for two weeks, but the State was barred from making any more appointments.

The bench clarified that the appointment of the State Commission’s chairman was not on the table.

Last week, the Supreme Court stated that the Supreme Court‘s suo motu case regarding vacancies in Consumer Commissions is not an impediment to the Bombay High Court‘s decision on a challenge to the Central Government‘s Consumer Protection Rules 2020.

Selection Committee has unrestricted discretion

The High Court cited Supreme Court decisions in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-2020 and MBA-2021) cases, which stated that advocates with ten years of experience should be considered for appointment as members of Tribunals.

As a result, the Court concluded that the Rules constitute an attempt to get around the Supreme Court‘s directives.

In the 2017 case State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vrs., the Supreme Court issued directives, according to the Court. For bringing uniformity of norms across the country in regard to the protocols to be followed in the appointment and selection of President and Members of the District Forum and State Forum, the All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Bar Association (UPCPBA Case) was filed.

“The Union of India should have framed the Rules of 2020 under the Act of 2019 in accordance with the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, issued in the case of UPCPBA, to rectify deficiencies pointed out in the said judgement, which has admittedly not been done. Whereas, under the Rules of 2020, the Selection Committee has been given unrestricted and uncanalized discretion, which will lead to unfavourable outcomes and be in violation of the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equal protection under the law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, this includes the right to have one’s rights adjudicated by a forum that exercises judicial power in an unbiased and independent manner, as hel d in MBA-2021,” the Court wrote in its decision.

“…under the Rules of 2020, the Union Government has given the Selection Committee complete power to choose its own procedure.”

The ultimate result would be nothing more than the situation described in the UPCPBA case, which will undoubtedly lead to wide variations in standards, as well as a great deal of subjective, bureaucratic, and political interference, and, ultimately, denial of justice in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution,” the Court adds.

As a result, the Court struck down Rule 6(9), which gave the selection committee the authority to determine its own procedure.

The Court noted that in the instant case, the impugned notice did not specify a written exam for the selection of members of the District and State Commissions, but simply a viva-voce test. However, the Selection Committee decided to hold a written test for selection during the pendency of the current petition and in the middle of the selection process, which is contrary to the well-established legal principle that rules for selection cannot be changed in the middle of the selection process.

In this backdrop, the Court said :

“…we have no hesitation in holding that Sub Rule (9) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2020, enacted under the Act of 2019, is extra vires and in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.”

To Read Official Judgement Download PDF Given Below:

from Studycafe https://ift.tt/3u9XbQw