On Thursday, the Supreme Court granted an exemption to former high court judges from the mandatory test required for appointment as the head of state consumer commissions. Additionally, it requested recommendations from the Centre on ensuring that the selection process for members of district and state consumer commissions is both “objective and fair.” The Court observed that eliminating the examination requirement could potentially allow ineligible individuals to gain entry through the backdoor and could also grant excessive discretion to the state authorities.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud issued the ruling while considering a series of appeals challenging a notification issued by the Centre in September 2023. This notification mandated heads and members of state and district consumer forums to pass a written examination covering various topics, including general knowledge. The notification was issued following a Supreme Court judgment on March 3, 2023, which made such a test mandatory. However, last month, the Supreme Court suggested that the Centre consider amending the regulations, as the examination posed a challenge in filling vacant positions.
Last week, the Centre filed an application expressing its willingness to amend the rules, as the examination was deemed neither feasible nor desirable. It proposed exempting Presidents of state and district consumer commissions from the examination and suggested expanding the selection committee chaired by the chief justice of the respective high court for the appointment of heads and members of district and state consumer forums. According to the existing rules, a former high court judge is eligible to serve as the president of state consumer forums.
The CJI remarked, “This condition is impractical, as it is unreasonable to expect a person to serve as president of state commissions after taking the examination. Similarly, it is not feasible to require a former high court judge to undergo the examination. It is akin to asking a former Supreme Court judge to pass a test on the environment before being appointed as the president of the national green tribunal.”
Regarding district forum presidents, who may be former district judges or individuals qualified to be district judges, the Court stated, “Eliminating the selection examination would provide a loophole for any lawyer to gain entry. Moreover, entrusting the decision to the states could lead to unchecked discretion.”
Additionally, the bench directed, “As far as the appointment of Presidents of state consumer commissions is concerned, we instruct that the requirement of a written examination and viva voce shall be relaxed for the time being.” It clarified that such appointments would be made in consultation and concurrence with the chief justice of the respective high court.
Regarding the Centre’s proposal to establish the selection committee comprising the high court chief justice or their nominee, along with the president of the state consumer commission and the consumer affairs secretary, who would not have voting rights in the selection process, the bench proposed including the law secretary of the respective state in the committee.
The bench stated, “We believe that the selection process should be objective and transparent. Furthermore, the selection committee should align with our previous directives.” The Court referred to earlier judgments emphasizing the judiciary’s primacy in making appointments to judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati agreed to return with concrete proposals on amending the Rules to ensure objectivity and transparency in the selection of district consumer forum heads and members of both state and district consumer commissions.
Before filing the application in Court, the Centre consulted state governments, which expressed difficulties in finding suitable candidates for the positions of president in state and district commissions. The states also stated that holding a written examination with a standard syllabus as a uniform policy across the country was neither feasible nor desirable.
The March 3 judgment by the Supreme Court directed that the appointment of presidents and members of state and district commissions be based on performance in a written test consisting of two papers. Each paper would carry 100 marks, with the first paper covering general knowledge, current affairs, knowledge of the Constitution, and consumer laws, while the second paper would be descriptive, requiring an essay and case study based on consumer cases.
The appeals currently being heard by the Court were filed by the Centre and the Maharashtra government against an order issued by the Bombay High Court on October 20, 2023, which struck down key provisions 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, 2023. These rules introduced the mandatory test in light of the March 2023 ruling by the Supreme Court.
The Bombay High Court issued the orders in response to a petition filed by Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, who was also the petitioner in the earlier Supreme Court judgment in March. The HC judgment invalidated the rule establishing the selection committee, holding that the judiciary was not given sufficient say in the selection process. Regarding the rule on the written test, the HC found that the requirement and syllabus prescribed by the state government were not fully in line with the Supreme Court judgment.
