The Allahabad High Court intervened to address the backlog of vacancies in district consumer commissions. The issue arose because new appointments were stalled due to an ongoing Supreme Court case challenging the validity of the appointment rules. The High Court’s involvement aims to prevent further accumulation of these vacancies.
The Allahabad High Court issued an order allowing retiring members of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions in Uttar Pradesh to remain in their positions until the Supreme Court resolves a legal challenge related to the rules of their appointment.
This interim order passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) that raised concerns about the unfilled vacancies in district consumer courts following the retirement of members.
The Court informed that new appointments could not proceed due to an ongoing Supreme Court case questioning the validity of the appointment rules.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court Stresses Confidentiality for Rape Survivor’s Identity
Acknowledging the uncertainty of when the Supreme Court will deliver its decision, the Bench directed that retiring members of the district commissions should continue in their roles temporarily.
The order dated May 31 stated,
“Given the indefinite timeline for the outcome of the matter pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the ongoing vacancies in various District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions due to the expiration of Members’ tenures, in light of the interim order granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Ors (supra) on 21.05.2024, we find it appropriate to direct that the current Chairmen and Members shall remain in service until further orders. This directive is subject to the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
A society called Come on India (the petitioner) filed a petition before the High Court. The petition requested the Court to permit retiring presidents and members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Uttar Pradesh to retain their positions until new appointments were made.
Moreover, the petition contested the legitimacy of Rule 10 (term of office of President or Member) of the Consumer Protection Rules of 2020. This rule established to oversee the appointment, terms of office, resignation, and removal of the president and members of State and District consumer commissions.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted that numerous DCDRC positions in the State were unfilled, with the likelihood of additional vacancies in the near future.
The delay in making new appointments to fill these vacancies attributed to ongoing litigation in the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Ors v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
The Ganeshkumar case challenges the validity of Rule 6 of the 2020 Rules, which pertains to the constitution of the selection committee responsible for appointing the president and members of the State and District consumer commissions.
In October 2023, the Bombay High Court struck down this rule, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court yet to issue a final decision on the matter.
However, the petitioner before the Allahabad High Court highlighted that the Supreme Court had already issued interim orders allowing existing consumer forum members to remain in service until further notice.
Furthermore, it argued that if current members not permitted to continue past their retirement temporarily, the number of vacancies would increase, leading to a backlog of consumer court cases.
The Court observed that 31 district commission posts were already vacant due to the retirement of members, with the number expected to rise to 109 by December this year.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court Employs Automatic System for Transparent Judge Allocation
Consequently, the Court ordered that retiring members of the district consumer commissions continue in service until further notice.
The High Court stated,
“The order would depend on the outcome of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
The next hearing for this matter scheduled for July 12.
Advocate Shivam Shukla and Vinod Kumar represented the petitioner.
ASGI Archit Mehrotra, ACSC AK Goyal, and SC Seema Agarwal represented the respondents.