NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the Centre’s view on establishing a dedicated cadre to select members of district and state consumer forum, observing that appointing persons with a limited tenure of five years was a “great disservice” to citizens considering the need for expertise to deal with cases of medical negligence and other emerging fields of law.
A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and MM Sundresh said, “When we look at the cases coming daily before the district and state forums, we feel they need expertise. If they are to be manned by people who have a tenure of 3 to 5 years, we are doing a great disservice to the consumers.”
The bench was hearing a set of applications in a case relating to the Centre and state governments challenging a decision of the top court in March 2023 amending the Consumer Protection Rules 2020 to prescribe written examination for president and members of consumer forums. Although the Centre introduced these changes by amending the rules, the top court modified its order in March 2024 to exempt former high court judges seeking appointment as heads of state consumer bodies from this test.
Expressing concern over the current system of appointments, the bench said, “Is the Centre not conscious about the need to have a cadre. Our experience shows that in the coming years, filing of civil cases will see a fall and consumer disputes will rise. See the kind of cases of medical negligence, etc being brought to these forums. These are original proceedings and judicial officers appointed on deputation for a limited period has made these forums meaningless, looking at the way it has been operating.”
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati assured the court that she will take instructions in this regard.
Posting the matter to February 6, the bench said, “What we are suggesting may require consideration at the highest level”. The bench also asked Bharti to consult Attorney General R Venkataramani in this regard.
“If the government wants common man to get the benefits under the Consumer Protection Act, the process of appointment has to change,” the bench observed, and allowed the Centre to propose any better solution in the larger interest of consumers.
The issue of having an objective assessment to select members of consumer forums has been engaging the attention of the top court after it entertained the appeal of the Centre and Maharashtra government against an October 2022 order of the Bombay high court striking down crucial provisions relating to criteria for appointing district and state consumer members.
The high court decision came on a public interest litigation filed by Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye among others who said that the selection process under the 2020 Rules violated earlier top court decisions prescribing uniform standards in making appointments to tribunals and to eschew bureaucratic and political interference in selecting candidates.
The high court also struck down the earlier threshold of 20 years experience fixed for state commission and 15 years for district commission.
In March 2023, the Centre’s appeal was dismissed and the top court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct that future appointment of president and members of state and district consumer commissions shall be based on their performance in a written test. This was done to bring transparency in appointments to consumer forums and to end “uncontrolled discretion” available with the government to get their nominees appointed through the selection committee.
Later, the Centre sought modification of this decision claiming that this condition was keeping away eligible members, including former high court judges, to take up appointments in consumer forums, thereby resulting in delay in filling up posts in these forums.
The top court on March 8 last year went on to exempt former high court judges from taking a mandatory test but observed that the order should not permit “backdoor entry” to ineligible persons and vest “unbridled discretion” in the hands of the state.