“Why doesn’t the Union draft the proposed rules, and then we review them, considering that members of the Commission are drawn from finance, etc.?”: CJI remarked. The SC ruled Today that neither a written examination nor a viva voce would be necessary for appointing Presidents of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, given that only retired HC judges are appointed to the position.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India Today (March 7th) ruled out the necessity for written examinations and viva voce for the appointment of Presidents to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. This significant move comes with the understanding that the positions are exclusively filled by retired High Court judges.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, articulated that subjecting a retired High Court judge to a written examination parallels the impracticality of expecting a retired Supreme Court judge to undergo a test in environmental law before assuming leadership at the National Green Tribunal.
The Court’s ruling was clear:
“It is conceded on both sides that no written test would be feasible for the appointment of the President of the State Commission where only a former High Court judge can be appointed. Thus for this point, we direct that the requirement of holding written exam and viva voce in terms envisaged shall stand relaxed for the President.”
However, the Supreme Court added a layer of scrutiny to the appointment process. It stated that the appointment of the President of the State Commission should occur only after obtaining the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. This ensures a level of judicial oversight and maintains the integrity of the appointment process.
The context of this ruling was a broader discussion on the appointment mechanisms for Presidents and members of consumer forums nationwide. The Supreme Court’s decision aims to streamline the appointment process while ensuring that the candidates’ qualifications and experience are appropriately recognized.
The discussion also extended to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Here, the Court expressed concerns over providing similar exemptions for written exams, suggesting it could lead to non-transparent appointments.
The Chief Justice remarked,
“Members of the Commission are drawn from finance etc…why doesn’t the Union draft the proposed rules and then we hear it? Because to say that no test at district level would mean backdoor entry for advocates. Better we hear this after rules are in place. We cannot leave it to the states because there will be unbridled discretions.”
The Supreme Court’s stance reflects a commitment to ensuring that appointments to district forums remain fair and transparent. It has directed the Central government to revisit and propose amendments to the existing rules governing these appointments.
This directive from the Supreme Court marks a significant step towards refining the recruitment process for key positions within the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. By removing the written exam and viva voce requirements for retired High Court judges while maintaining a rigorous selection process, the Court aims to balance the need for experienced leadership with the principles of fairness and transparency.
As the legal community and consumer rights advocates await the Central government’s response, this ruling is poised to influence the future landscape of consumer rights redressal in India. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of leveraging judicial experience while safeguarding the integrity and effectiveness of consumer forums across the nation.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Supreme Court of India
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
