Case name	Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye
Citation	2023 SCC OnLine SC 231
Court	The Supreme Court of India
Bench	Justice M.R. ShahJustice M.M. Sundresh
Decided on	March 3rd, 2023
Case No.	Civil Appeal No. 831 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No. 19492 of 2021)

Introduction

In a momentous legal move, the Bombay High Court recently issued a decision nullifying key element of the 2020 Consumer Protection Rules. These regulations required substantial professional experience, especially 20 years for State Consumer Commission members and 15 years for District Forum members. The court, led by Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor, declared the rules illegal, citing infringement of Article 14. The case, which was precipitated by petitions filed by Advocate Dr. Mahindra Limaye and Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe, closely follows the Supreme Court’s precedent in the Madras Bar Association cases. The Supreme Court adopted a more inclusive approach, requiring nominees to have at least ten years of experience and undergo a thorough vetting procedure. This introduction summarises the legal complexities and constitutional issues underlying the Bombay High Court’s ruling on the 2020 Consumer Protection Rules, emphasizing the critical shift in the criteria for choosing members to State Consumer Commissions and District Forums.

Facts of the Case

• The Bombay High Court nullified provisions of the new Consumer Protection Rules 2020, requiring members of State Consumer Commissions and District Forums to have a minimum professional knowledge of 20 years and 15 years, respectively. 
• The court overturned a section that allowed each state’s selection body to suggest individuals for appointment to the State Government based on quality. 
• The order pertains to the 2020 Rules issued by the Central Government under Section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, governing the selection, qualifications, eligibility, and removal of members of the State Consumer Commission and District Consumer Forums in India.
• A division bench led by Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor ruled that Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 6(9) are unconstitutional and violate Article 14 in response to petitions filed by Advocate Dr Mahindra Limaye and Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe. 
• The High Court followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-2020 and MBA-2021) cases, which mandated that attorneys with at least 10 years of experience be considered for selection to tribunals. 
• This current appeal is against the High Court’s order.

Rule

Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation, and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 

1. Rule 3 – stipulated that individuals must have a minimum of 20 years of professional experience to be considered for appointment as members of State Consumer Commissions. 
2. Rule 4 – stipulated that individuals must have a minimum of 20 years of professional experience to be considered for appointment as members of District Consumer Commissions. 
3. Rule 6 – states procedure of appointment  

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Act, 2019) 

1. Section 71 – states the power of the commission with respect to civil court.  
2. Section 72 – states the power of the commission with respect to JMFC 

Issues

1. What are the minimum requirements or qualification criteria for being qualified to become a member of State consumer commissions and District forums?

Arguments

Appellant’s Contentions

• • The council stated that Rule 6(9), which governs nominations, provided too much freedom to the selection panel. Additionally, objective indicators, such as a written test, should have been available to assess candidates’ fitness and eligibility. 
• The majority of states rejected having written tests during talks. 
• The UOI and states agreed on specific measures after another meeting.
• It was noted that a written test for tribunal member nominations as a standard procedure would neither be possible nor acceptable, owing to, among other things. 
• The council argued that directing the Selection Committee’s discretion to issue orders falls under Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules. 
• In the case of handicapped people, the written test may not be a feasible and efficient method for the selection process. 

Respondent’s Contentions

• It has been pointed out that the eligibility criteria should be stringent for the appointment of the Consumer State Commission and District Commission because there might be chances of incompetent candidates and their adjudicating the consumer dispute will be inadequate.  
• According to Rule 6(9), the selection group is granted unrestricted arbitrary powers to choose how to go about selecting the president and members of the State and District Commission. As a consequence, such an unchecked delegation of authority will produce undesirable outcomes. 
• It is contented that Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) are also arbitrary in nature and do violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.  
• In the 272^nd Law Commission report, it was mentioned that members of the newly established tribunals must meet the same requirements as High Court and District Court justices. The report also suggested that the nominations be made consistently. 
• In the UPCPBA case, the court authorized the model guidelines and adopted by all parties. 
• In accordance with the authority granted by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, the State of Maharashtra also adopted and authorized the model regulations on May 24, 2019. 
• In the State of Maharashtra, the Model Rules of 2012 had previously been in effect under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. Potential candidates/applicants for the position of President and Members of District Consumer Forum were already required to take a written test worth 100 points under Rule 10 of the aforementioned regulations. 
• This Court has authorized the standard model rules for employment, pay, service conditions, etc., to resolve consumer complaints under the Act, 1986 efficiently.  
• While performing the quasi-judicial function, it is mandatory to go with the procedure and interview to test the candidate’s competency so that no undeserving result is declared.  
• Therefore, the council contends that there is no error being committed by the High Court with respect to the enforcement of rules 3, 4, and 9 of Rules 2020 as obstructive, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. 

Judgment

The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s judgement to overturn the guidelines issued by the Central Government in accordance with Section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. This section abolished the requirement for a written test and established a minimum professional experience level of 20 years and 15 years for members of the State Consumer Commissions and District Forums, respectively. 

The court noted that Rule 6(9) lacks transparency and grants the Selection Committee unrestricted jurisdiction. The Bench noted that the Union Government tried to reverse Apex Court orders, including one in the Madras Bar Association case, which was illegal. 

The Supreme Court has directed that until amendments are made to the Consumer Protection Act, in order to provide complete justice under Article 142, individuals who possess a Bachelor’s degree from a recognised university and have special knowledge and professional experience of at least 10 years in areas such as consumer affairs, law, public affairs, and administration, will be deemed qualified for appointment as Presidents and members of State and District Commissions. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s findings in the Madras Bar Association cases. 

The Supreme Court has also ordered that the nomination procedure for the President and members of State and District Commissions be based on performance in two papers, with a minimum qualifying mark of 50% in each. In addition, as part of the appointment procedure, a viva examination with a weightage of 50 marks for each paper is required.

Analysis

The Supreme Court’s approval of the Bombay High Court’s decision to overturn portions of the 2020 Consumer Protection Rules marks a watershed point in Indian legal history. Based on a breach of Article 14, the verdict is consistent with the approach followed in the Madras Bar Association proceedings, which advocated for a more inclusive selection procedure. The need for a minimum of ten years of experience for State Consumer Commission and District Forum members demonstrates the court’s commitment to balancing knowledge and accessibility.

A crucial criticism addressed in the decision is Rule 6(9), which gives the Selection Committee enormous discretionary authority. The court believes this regulation’s lack of openness might lead to arbitrary outcomes. Thus, it advocates for a more organized and impartial selection procedure. Rejecting the Union Government’s attempts to overrule the court’s instructions demonstrates the judiciary’s dedication to respecting its rulings and preserving the legal system’s integrity.

The decision sets a new benchmark for appointments, emphasising the value of a Bachelor’s degree and a decade of specialised expertise in related subjects. This criterion and the requirement for a written test and a thorough vetting procedure are intended to assure the competence and fitness of appointed personnel.

In essence, the judgment represents a paradigm shift in the criterion for choosing members to State and District Commissions, emphasizing not experience, transparency, and redness in the selection process in order to better serve the goals of India’s consumer protection legislation.

Conclusion

In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court affirmed a Bombay High Court decision that invalidated sections of the Consumer Protection Rules prohibiting people with ten years of professional experience from being nominated to State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums. The Court determined that nominations to these positions must be based on performance in a written test consisting of two papers. 

The court further noted that Rule 6(9) grants the Selection Committee discretionary and unlimited jurisdiction to decide how to conduct itself and to recommend candidates for appointments as presidents and members of the State and District Commissions. 

The selecting techniques are not transparent. It noted that appointing persons who are unqualified and unworthy might undermine the Act’s purposes. 

The respondent contended that the scheme’s approach to resolving consumer complaints had not altered appreciably. In light of this, consumer commissioners are quasi-judicial entities with the competence to perform judicial functions under both civil and criminal law. 

When the Central Government drafts the Rules, 2020 in line with its jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Act, 2019, it states that the challenged Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 6(9) exacerbated the situation compared to the pre-2020 rules.

As a result, it was determined that members of the State and District Consumer Commissions, as well as the President, must have at least 10 years of legal experience.