In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has nullified Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. This rule had prescribed the inclusion of two members from the State bureaucracy and only one from the judiciary in the Selection Committee. This committee is responsible for recommending the appointment of the President and member-judges to the State and District Consumer Commissions.
The division bench, comprising Justices Atul Chandurkar and Vrushali Joshi, observed that the rule was
“diluting the involvement of the judiciary.”
They further noted the “lack of judicial dominance” was in
“contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and also an encroachment on the judicial domain.”
The court’s observation was clear:
“With the Chairperson being the sole representative of the Judiciary in the three Member selection committee, there is lack of judicial dominance which has been held to be in direct contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and also an encroachment on the judicial domain. Its present composition definitely results in excessive interference of the Executive in the appointment of President and members of the State Commission and the District Commission. It results in diluting the involvement of judiciary in the process of appointment of members of the Tribunals amounting to an encroachment by the executive on the judiciary.”
Furthermore, the court quashed Rule 10(2), which had prescribed only a four-year tenure for members instead of five. It also found the advertisement issued by Maharashtra’s Department of Consumer Affairs for recruitment to be without jurisdiction for one of the two written papers.
As a consequence of Rule 6(1) being struck down, the court also set aside notifications issued in June this year that constituted the selection committees.
Advocate Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye
In 2021, the same High Court bench had quashed several other rules of 2020 based on Dr. Limaye’s plea.
The court also addressed the constitution of the selection committee, stating that the Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government should not have a say in the appointment of members.
The petitioners had argued that members have significant powers to adjudicate consumer disputes and should be treated like civil courts. They cited the Madras Bar Association vs. UOI case and the Rojer Mathew case regarding the “basic structure doctrine” and “independence of judiciary.”
The Union of India contended that the presence of a judicial member for selection was mandatory, so there was no dilution of judicial dominance. However, the court sided with the petitioners and quashed Rule 6(1).
This landmark decision underscores the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and ensuring that the process of appointment remains free from excessive executive interference.
