Supreme Court: While considering a bunch of appeals concerning issues related to appointments and tenure in various consumer forums; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh*, JJ., exercising the Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution, issued the following directions:
-
The Union of India was 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 3 months, on the touchstone of the constitutional mandate. Such a forum shall consist of permanent members, including both staff and the Presiding officers. The Union of India may also consider facilitating sitting Judges to head the fora. The strength may be increased adequately.
-
Union of India to notify the new Rules within a period of 4 months strictly adhering to—
-
the Court’s view in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited, (2020) 6 SCC 1; Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 369 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2022) 12 SCC 455, with respect to the tenure of office being five years, being both logical and necessary, must be incorporated in the new Rules to be notified;
-
composition of the Selection Committee shall be such that the members from the Judiciary must constitute the majority;
-
No written examination, followed by a viva voce, shall be required for appointment and reappointment to the posts of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission;
-
written examination followed by a viva voce shall be required only for appointment and reappointment to the posts of Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission and Members of the District Commission.
-
written examination for appointments to the State and District Commissions shall be conducted in consultation with the respective State Service Commissions;
-
The Court also accepted the proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 4(1) of the 2020 Consumer Protection Qualification for Appointment Rules (Para 72 of the Judgement) that the qualification for appointment to the post of President of the District Commission, shall be restricted to either a serving or a retired District Judge.
-
-
Upon notification of the new Rules by the Union of India, all the States are directed to complete the process of recruitment under the same, within a period of 4 months from the date of the notification of the said Rules.
The Court stated that since the essence of consumerism is embedded within the Constitution, there is absolutely no reason to fill up the Consumer fora with tenure based offices for the Staff, Members and Presidents. “While we leave it to the wisdom of the Union of India to revamp the existing structure with holistic changes, we would only implore upon it, to appreciate the pressing need for a permanent structure”. Consumer fora can be given permanency through permanent staff and officers, including Presidents and Members at different levels.
Background:
The Bombay High Court via its impugned judgment (Impugned Order I) struck down Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (“the 2020 Rules”), finding them to be legally unsustainable.
Thereafter, Bombay High Court in another impugned judgment (Impugned Order II) held that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 231 (Limaye — I) qua the conduct of the written examination, relate only to the appointment of non-judicial members of the State Commission and members of the District Commissions.
Impugned Order III concerned with decision of Telangana High Court, wherein the appointments to the post of Members of the District Commission, pursuant to a written examination and viva voce, was set aside.
Court’s Assessment:
Considering the appeals, the Court delved into various aspects of consumerism. The Court noted that concept of consumerism has evolved in India since ancient times. A solemn duty was ordained on the King, to hold the trader accountable to a standard of fairness in every transaction with a consumer. Any violation by traders was dealt with by the Ruler, not only by retributive, but also by reformative action.
The Court further stated that Consumerism constitutes the very spirit of the Constitution (Articles 38, 39 and 47 as highlighted by the Court). It does not end with recognizing and protecting the rights of a consumer vis-à-vis a trader or a service provider, as the case may be, but travels far beyond. The rights of a consumer are not merely constitutional or statutory guarantees, but are in fact, natural, and therefore, inalienable. “The fact that the society, economy, polity and the environment, are inseparable from each other, is something that was envisioned even by the framers of the Constitution”.
The Court also highlighted the legislative scheme under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thereafter, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was noted that the legislations were brought forth to give effect to the discovery and progressive realization of India’s constitutional rights, culture and ethos. It was felt that a dedicated consumer legislation was needed for citizens, to attain exposure to participative democracy, day-to-day economics, ongoing politics and environmental protection, endeavouring towards socio-economic, political and environmental justice. The Court stated that while dealing with consumer disputes, the Consumer fora created under the 1986 Act and, thereafter, retained under the 2019 Act, must be mindful of the aforesaid constitutional basis, as a mere dictionary meaning can never do complete justice to the word ‘consumer’.
The Court remarked that consumer litigation is a form of public interest litigation, which builds an active citizenry, enhancing participatory democracy. Participatory democracy is one of the basic features of the Constitution. The principle of participation in the governance of the country, is not only a constitutional right, but also a human right. It is thus imperative that consumer litigation should be allowed to grow multi-fold, for a democracy to flourish.
The Court said that it is not only the duty of the State or a goods/service provider, but also of every individual, to make sure that the concept of consumerism flourishes in every possible way, in order to give effect to the Fundamental Rights ensured to the citizens, in adherence with the constitutional mandate. The Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties enshrined under Part IV and Part IVA of the Constitution respectively, reflect the very same understanding.
Policies of the government in power, influence citizens when they set out to exercise their vote during upcoming elections, as every voter is a consumer. Political manifestos are often built on the consumption demands of citizens. “Free ration, free electricity, and free bus tickets are only some of the promises that have, in the recent past, sparked strong public discourse. These promises, in some sense, determine who forms the government, which thereafter takes policy decisions influenced by consumption patterns”.
Consumers are the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. It is through their spending decisions, that producers are informed about the kinds and quantities of goods and services to provide. Increased consumer spending also leads to a higher demand for labour, as businesses need more employees to produce and sell goods and services. Key economic indicators like the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) are closely observed by businesses, investors, and policymakers, to gauge the health of the economy. Thus, the success of all economic activity depends upon the consumer.
Consumerism has taken a new shape in the form of Green Consumerism. Growing concerns about climate change and resource depletion have spurred consumers, especially in the younger generations, to seek sustainable options. Sustainable choices can help conserve natural resources and reduce reliance on finite resources. On the ancillary front, it can stimulate innovation and create new jobs in the renewable energy sector and sustainable industries.
With the afore-stated analysis of the multiple impacts of consumerism, the Court had to examine whether the grievance redressal mechanism provided to a consumer, is adequate or not. While every Court of Law, of which a consumer is also part, is expected to uphold constitutional principles, a Consumer forum has its primary objective in ensuring the same. This is more so as consumerism is ever evolving and is likely to take different dimensions in the coming years.
The Court remarked that there is absolutely no reason to fill up the Consumer fora with tenure based offices for the Staff, Members and Presidents. Security of tenure attached to an office administering justice, enhances its efficiency and functionality. Any person appointed to an office with a fixed tenure would not be as motivated as one appointed on a permanent basis.
“We feel that the time has come to effect a change in mindset qua revamping the tenure of office in Consumer fora”.
Decision:
Vis-a-vis seeking clarification of Limaye – I (supra) regarding the requirement of holding written examinations and viva voce for persons with a judicial background, seeking appointment under Rules 3(1), 3(2)(a) and 4(1) of the 2020 Rules, the Court allowed the review petitions to the extent that there shall be no requirement of a written examination followed by a viva voce for selection to the posts of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission under Rules 3(1), 3(2)(a) and 4(1) of the 2020 Rules, respectively.
Vis-a-vis Impugned Order- I, the Court did not find any fault with High Court’s decision to strike down Rule 6(1) and Rule 10(2) of the 2020 Rules and the consequent notifications. The Court further decided that Impugned Order – I, to the extent of suggesting the applicability of Rule 8(18) of the Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowances, and Conditions of Service of President and Members of State Commission and District Forum) Rules, 2019 qua reappointments, was set aside.
Vis-a-vis Impugned Order- II, wherein Bombay High Court had directed that the candidature of the respondent, be considered for the post of Judicial Member of the State Commission, sans a written examination followed by a viva voce, as contemplated under the advertisement; the Court found no reason to interfere with the said order.
Vis-a-vis Impugned Order-III, the Court set aside the judgment of Telangana High Court stating that the appointment of the appellants was done pursuant to a written examination as well as a viva voce. The entire selection process had been concluded prior to Limaye – I (supra).
Relief:
As regards the status of appointment to the posts of Presidents and Members of the State and District Commissions, the Court issued the following directions under 7 categories:
1. Persons appointed as Members of the State Commission and Presidents and Members of the District Commission in the State of Maharashtra, vide order dated 05-10-2023 pursuant to the written examination and viva voce
They shall be allowed to complete their tenure in entirety. In the event of their tenure ending before the completion of the recruitment process under the new Rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to continue until the completion of the said recruitment process.
2. Persons seeking reappointment in the State of Maharashtra, after their services had been terminated vide order dated 06-10-2023
They can be considered for reappointment in the State and District Commissions, based on the new Rules to be notified, subject to the condition that persons seeking reappointment to the posts of President and Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission, shall not be required to undergo a written examination followed by a viva voce, while Non- Judicial Members of the State and District Commissions, shall be required to undergo a written examination followed by a viva voce.
3. Presidents and Members of the State and District Commissions who have been appointed and serving prior to Limaye – I (supra)
They shall be allowed to complete their tenure in entirety. In the event of their tenure ending before the completion of the recruitment process under the new Rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to continue until the completion of the said recruitment process.
4. Presidents of the State and District Commissions, and the Judicial Members of the State Commission, in other States, with/without having given the written examination followed by a viva voce.
Those who are appointed and serving shall be allowed to complete their tenure in entirety. Those who have been selected, but not appointed, on account of the concerned States having stayed the appointment process during the pendency of these appeals, shall be appointed to the respective post, and shall be allowed to continue in office till the entirety of their tenure.
5. Persons who are selected to the posts of non-judicial Members of the State Commission and Members of the District Commission, without having undergone a written examination followed by a viva voce
In case the selection process had been completed prior to the decision of this Court in Limaye – I (supra), such persons shall be entitled to complete their tenure in entirety. In case the selection process has been completed post Limaye – I (supra), such persons shall be entitled to continue in their respective posts till the completion of the recruitment process under the new Rules to be notified. If selected but not appointed, such persons shall not be entitled to be appointed.
6. Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission and the Members of the District Commission, who have given the written examination and viva voce
If already appointed and serving, they shall be allowed to continue in service for the entirety of their tenure. If selected, but not appointed, on account of the State having stayed the appointment process during the pendency of these appeals, such persons shall be appointed to the respective posts, and shall be allowed to continue in office for the entirety of their tenure.
7. Persons seeking reappointment in other States after termination of their services
They can be considered for reappointment in the State and District Commissions, based on the new Rules to be notified, subject to the condition that persons seeking reappointment to the posts of President and Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission, shall not be required to undergo a written examination followed by a viva voce, while Non- Judicial Members of the State and District Commissions, shall be required to undergo a written examination followed by a viva voce.
The Court clarified that for all those appointments which have been allowed to continue vide this Judgment, the tenure shall be a period of 4 years. Such persons shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of this Judgment qua a five-year tenure, subject to the directions issued. Furthermore, this Judgment shall apply prospectively, except to the extent indicated.
[Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9982 OF 2024, decided on 21-5-2025]
*Judgment by M.M Sundresh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant(s) Mr. R Venkataramani, A G for India Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Dr. Tushar Mandlekar, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, AOR Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Panistha Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Tejas Fadnavis, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. B. Veeraswamy Raju, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Mr. Manohar Naagar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Nagar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kasana, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, A.A.G. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. M.F.Philip, Adv. Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Sneha Botwe, Adv. Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv. Dr. Tushar Mandlekar, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, AOR Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Panistha Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Tejas Fadnavis, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Sachin Shanmukham Pujari, AOR Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S. Uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Krishna M. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Deepti Singh, Adv. Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv. Mr. Jyoti Mishra, Adv. M/S. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, AOR Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv. Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR Dr. Tushar Mandlekar, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, AOR Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Panistha Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Tejas Fadnavis, Adv. Mr. R. Venkataramani, A G for India Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Somvir Singh Deswal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Deswal, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. P.D. Sharma, AOR
Buy Constitution of India HERE
