/2023 INSC 0153/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  831 OF 2023
(@ SLP(C) NO. 19492 OF 2021)
The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs       ...Appellant(S)
Versus
Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors.             ...Respondent(S)
with 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  832 OF 2023
with 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  833 OF 2023
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order  dated 14.09.2021 passed by
the High Court of Judicature Bombay at Nagpur Bench at
Nagpur in Public Interest Litigation No. 11/2021 and Writ
1

Petition No. 1096 of 2021, by which, the Division Bench of
the   High   Court   has   struck   down   and   has   declared   Rule
3(2)(b),   Rule   4(2)(c)   and   Rule   6(9)   of   the   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
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Rules,   2020)   as   arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of   India,   the   Ministry   of   Consumer   Affairs,   Union   of   India
and   State   of   Maharashtra   have   preferred   the   present
appeals. 
2. In   exercise   of   powers   conferred   by   Sections   29   and   43,
read with clauses (n) and (w) of Sub­section (2) of Section
101   of   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   2019   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   the   Act,   2019),   the   Ministry   of   Consumer
Affairs,   Food   and   Public   Distribution   (Department   of
Consumer Affairs) framed the Rules, 2020. 
2

2.1 Rule   3   of   Rules,   2020   provides   for   qualifications   for
appointment   of   President   and   members   of   the   State
Commission. Rule 3(2)(b) provided that a person shall not
be   qualified   for   appointment   as   a   member   of   the   State
Commission unless he possesses a bachelor’s degree from
a recognized university and is a person of ability, integrity
and standing, and has special knowledge and professional
experience   of   not   less   than   twenty   years   in   consumer
affairs, law, public affairs….
2.2 Rule   4   of   Rules,   2020   provides   for   appointment   of
President and member of District Commission. Rule 4(2)(c)
provided   that   a   person   shall   not   be   qualified   for
appointment   as   a   member   of   the   District   Commission
unless he is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and
having   special   knowledge   and   professional   experience   of
not less than fifteen years in consumer affairs, law, public
affairs….. 
2.3 Rule   6   of   Rules   2020   provides   for   procedure   for
appointment.   Rule   6(9)   provided   that   the   Selection
3

Committee   shall   determine   its   procedure   for   making   its
recommendation   keeping   in   view   the   requirements   of   the
State   Commission   or   the   District   Commission   and   after
taking   into   account   the   suitability,   record   of   past
performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience. 
2.4 Rule   3(2)(b),   Rule   4(2)(c)   and   Rule   6(9)   were   the   subject
matter   of   challenge   before   the   High   Court   being
unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Rule 3, Rule 4, and Rule 6 reads as
under: ­ 
“3.   Qualifications   for   appointment   of   President   and
members of  the  State Commission .—(1) A person shall
not   be   qualified   for   appointment   as   President,   unless   he
is, or has been, a Judge of the High Court;
(2)   A   person   shall   not   be   qualified   for   appointment   as   a
member   unless   he   is   of   not   less   than   forty   years   of   age
and possesses­—
( a ) an experience of at least ten years as presiding officer
of a district court or of any tribunal at equivalent level or
combined   service   as   such   in   the   district   court   and
tribunal:
Provided   that   not   more   than   fifty   percent   of   such
members shall be appointed; or
( b ) a bachelor's degree from a recognised university and is
a person of ability, integrity and standing, and has special
knowledge   and   professional   experience   of   not   less   than
twenty   years   in   consumer   affairs,   law,   public   affairs,
administration,   economics,   commerce,   industry,   finance,
management,   engineering,   technology,   public   health   or
medicine:
(3)   At   least   one   member   or   the   President   of   the   State
Commission shall be a woman.
4

4.   Qualifications   for   appointment   of   President   and
member of District Commission .—(1) A person shall not
be qualified for appointment as President, unless he is, or
has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge.
(2)   A   person   shall   not   be   qualified   for   appointment   as
member unless he—
( a ) is of not less than thirty­five years of age;
( b )   possesses   a   bachelor's   degree   from   a   recognised
University; and
( c )   is   a   person   of   ability,   integrity   and   standing,   and
having   special   knowledge   and   professional   experience   of
not less than fifteen years in consumer affairs, law, public
affairs,   administration,   economics,   commerce,   industry,
finance,   management,   engineering,   technology,   public
health or medicine.
(3)   At   least   one   member   or   the   President   of   the   District
Commission shall be a woman.
6.   Procedure   of   appointment .—(1)   The   President   and
members   of   the   State   Commission   and   the   District
Commission shall be appointed by the State Government
on   the   recommendation   of   a   Selection   Committee,
consisting of the following persons, namely:—
( a )   Chief   Justice   of   the   High   Court   or   any   Judge   of   the
High Court nominated by him­ Chairperson;
( b )   Secretary   in   charge   of   Consumer   Affairs   of   the   State
Government − Member;
( c ) Nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State—Member.
(2)   The   Secretary   in   charge   of   Consumer   Affairs   of   the
State   Government   shall   be   the   convener   of   the   Selection
Committee.
(3) No appointment of the President, or of a member shall
be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy or absence in
the Selection Committee other than a vacancy or absence
of the Chairperson.
(4)   The   process   of   appointments   shall  be   initiated   by   the
State Government at least six months before the vacancy
arises.
(5)   If   a   post   falls   vacant   due   to   resignation   or   death   of   a
member   or   creation   of   a   new   post,   the   process   for   filling
the post  shall be  initiated immediately  after  the post  has
fallen vacant or is created, as the case may be.
(6)   The   advertisement   of   a   vacancy   inviting   applications
for   the   posts   from   eligible   candidates   shall   be   published
in   leading   newspapers   and   circulated   in   such   other
manner as the State Government may deem appropriate.
5

(7)   After   scrutiny   of   the   applications   received   till   the   last
date   specified   for   receipt   of   such   applications,   a   list   of
eligible   candidates   along   with   their   applications   shall   be
placed before the Selection Committee.
(8)   The   Selection   Committee   shall   consider   all   the
applications   of   eligible   applicants   referred   to   it   and   if   it
considers   necessary,   it   may   shortlist   the   applicants   in
accordance with such criteria as it may decide.
(9) The Selection Committee shall determine its procedure
for   making   its   recommendation   keeping   in   view   the
requirements   of   the   State   Commission   or   the   District
Commission and after taking into account the suitability,
record   of   past   performance,   integrity   and   adjudicatory
experience.
(10) The Selection committee shall recommend a panel of
names of candidates for appointment in the order of merit
for the consideration of the State Government.
(11)   The   State   Government   shall   verify   or   cause   to   be
verified   the   credentials   and   antecedents   of   the
recommended candidates.
(12) Every appointment of a President or member shall be
subject to submission of a certificate of physical fitness as
indicated   in   the   annexure   appended   to   these   rules,   duly
signed by a civil surgeon or District Medical Officer.
(13)   Before   appointment,   the   selected   candidate   shall
furnish an undertaking that he does not and will not have
any   such   financial   or   other   interest   as   is   likely   to   affect
prejudicially his functions as a President or member.”
2.5 The   validity   of   the   aforesaid   rules,   namely,   Rules   3   (2)(b),
4(2)(c)   and   6(9)   were   challenged   before   the   High   Court   by
the original writ petitioner on the following grounds: ­
(a) Uncontrolled   discretion   and   excessive   power   to   the
selection   committee   to   determine   its   procedure   to
recommend candidates to be appointed is arbitrary,
6

unreasonable   and   in   violation   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution of India.
(b) Considering   the   nature   of   work,   the   candidate’s
competency   needs   to   be   tested   before   being
recommended   for   the   appointment   to   discharge
judicial functions. Therefore, the candidates who are
being appointed must have a legal background.
(c) In   the   absence   of   the   appointment   of   competent
candidates,   the   object   of   the   Consumer   Protection
Act is likely to be frustrated. 
(d) The president and members of the State and District
Commission   are   empowered   with   the   powers   of   the
Court.   In   the   appointment   of   Judicial   Magistrate
First   Class   (JMFC),   the   candidates   are   tested   by
written examination and viva voce. 
(e) The   Draft   model   rules   approved   by   this   Hon’ble
Court   and   accepted   by   all   the   parties   are   not
adhered   with.   Hence,   contrary   to   the   directions   of
this Hon’ble Court. 
(f) The   transparency   and   selection   criteria   are   absent
in the said rules. 
7

(g) In   absence   of   transparency   in   the   matter   of
appointments   of   Chairman   and   Members,   there   is
strong   apprehension   of   political   and   executive
interference.     
2.6 It   was   also   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ
petitioners     before   the   High   Court   that   this   Court   in   the
case of   State  of  Uttar  Pradesh and   Others  Vs.  All   Uttar
Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association; (2017) 1
SCC   444   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   UPCPBA) ,
directed   to   frame   model   rules   under   the   Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, model rules were framed
by   this   Court   and   accepted   by   all   the   parties.   It   was   also
the   case   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   that   by
adopting   the   model   rules,   many   states   notified   the
Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowance and
Conditions   of   Service   of   President   and   Members   of   State
Commission   and   District   Forum)   Rules,   2017   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   the   Rules,   2017)   on   18.05.2018.   It   was
submitted that model rules 2012 were already in existence
in   the   State   of   Maharashtra   made   on   03.01.2012   under
8

Section   30   of   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986   and   the
said   Rules   already   had   the   provision   of   written
examination   of   100   marks   for   aspiring
candidates/applicants   for   the   post   of   President   and
Members   of   District   Consumer   Forum   under   Rule   10.   It
was   submitted   that   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   2019
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Act,   2019)   came   into   force
with   effect   from   20.07.2020   by   repealing   the   erstwhile
statute Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also argued
on   behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   that   under   the
Rules   2020,   the   power   conferred   upon   the   Selection
Committee to determine its own procedure for selection of
President   and   Members   of   the   District   and   the   State
Commission   constituted   under   the   Act,   2019   is   in
contravention   of   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
UPCPBA   (supra) .   It   was   also   argued   on   behalf   of   the
original   writ   petitioners   that   looking   at   the   judicial
functions   to   be   performed   by   President   and   Members   of
the District and State Commissions constituted under the
Act,   2019,   the   selection   without   holding   written
examination,   but,   only   on   the   basis   of   viva   voce,   would
9

result   into   selection   of   unsuitable   candidates   which   will
further   result   in   denial   of   justice.   It   was   also   argued   on
behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   that   prescribing
minimum   experience   of   20   years   and   15   years   for
President   and   Members   of   State   and   District   Commission
respectively,   is   contrary   to   the   directions   issued   by   this
Court in the case of  Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of
India and Another; (2021) 7 SCC 369 . That thereafter, by
the impugned common judgment and order the High Court
has declared Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the
Rules,   2020   as   ultra­virus   and   unconstitutional,
unreasonable,   arbitrary   and   violative   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution of India and contrary to the observations and
directions   issued   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   UPCPBA
(supra) .   The   High   Court   has   specifically   observed   that
granting   complete   discretion   under   the   Rules   2020   to   the
Selection Committee to determine its own procedure would
result   in   creating   a   situation   which   has   been   narrated   in
the   case   of   UPCPBA   (supra)   and   will   again   lead   to   wide
variations   in   standards   as   well   as   a   great   deal   of
10

subjective,   bureaucratic   and   political   interference,   and
finally   it   will   result   in   denial   of   justice   which   will   be   in
violation   of   Article   14   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   That
while   holding   the   aforesaid   provisions   unconstitutional,
unreasonable   and   arbitrary,   the   High   Court   has
considered   the   historical   background   of   tribunalisation
and   the   fact   that   the   tribunals   are   endowed   with   the
judicial   functions   with   a   duty   to   decide   the   matters   in
judicious   manner.   Therefore,   the   High   Court   has   opined
and observed that the standards expected from the judicial
members   of   the   tribunals   and   standards   applied   for
appointing such members, should be as nearly as possible
as applicable to the appointment of judges exercising such
powers.   That   thereafter,   following   the   decisions   of   this
Court in the case of   Madras Bar Association (supra)   and
UPCPBA   (supra),   the   High   Court   has   concluded   and
passed the final order as under: ­   
i. “The   Public   Interest   Litigation   No.   11   of   2021   is
allowed;
ii. The Writ Petition No. 1096/2021 is partly allowed; 
11

iii. It is held and declared that Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2) (c)
and   Rule   6(9)   of   the   Rules   of   2020,   are   arbitrary,
unreasonable   and   violative   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution of India for the reasons recorded herein
above and hence are quashed and set aside;  
iv. The   Union   of   India   is   directed   to   provide   for
appropriately   made   Rules   as   substitutes   for   Rule   3
(2)(b),   Rule   4(2)(c)   and   Rule   6(9)   of   the   Rules,   2020,
declared   unconstitutional,   keeping   in   view   the
observations   made   in   the   judgment,   within   four
weeks from the date of the judgment and order;
v. The vacancy notice dated 2nd February, 2021 issued
by   the   respondent   no.   2   for   inviting   applications   for
the   post   of   Members   of   the   State   Commission   and
President   and   Members   of   the   District   Commission,
is hereby quashed and set aside;
vi. The   process   of   selection   of   Members   of   the   State
Commission   and   President   and   the   Members   of   the
District   Commission,   initiated   in   pursuance   to   the
vacancy   notice   dated   2nd   February,   2021,   stands
cancelled;
vii. Fresh   process   of   selection   of   members   of   the   State
Commission,   President   and   the   members   of   the
District   Commission   be   initiated   in   accordance   with
12

the   amended   Rules   and   completed   at   the   earliest   as
directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India;
viii. It   is   made   clear   that   we   have   not   dealt   with   the
validity   of   appointment   made   of   the   President   of
State Commission, Maharashtra State; 
ix. No orders as to costs.”
2.7 The  impugned  common judgment and order passed by the
High Court is the subject matter of present appeals. 
3. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India
has   submitted   that   after   the   matters   were   heard   by   this
Court   on   17.11.2022   and   18.11.2022,   where   this   Court
was of the  prima facie  view that Rule 6(9), which deals with
the   procedure   of   appointment,   left   too   much   discretion   in
the hands of the selection committee, and that there ought
to have been some objective criteria on the basis of which
the fitness and suitability of candidates be tested, such as
a written examination. It is pointed out that based on the
observations that fell from this Court on the previous dates
of  hearing,  the  matter   was  considered  by  the  Government
and   pursuant   thereto,   a   meeting   was   called   between   the
13

Union   of   India   and   all   the   State   governments   to   consider
the   desirability   and   feasibility   of   conducting   a   written
examination   for   appointment   to   the   State   and   District
Commissions,   or   in   the   alternate,   to   consider   as   to
whether   rules   or   guidelines   can   be   made   which   would
reduce   the   discretion   available   to   the   Search­cum­
Selection   Committees   while   carrying   out   appointments.   It
is submitted that in the course of discussions between the
States, it was observed that most states were not in favour
of   conducting   written   tests.   It   is   submitted   that   based   on
the discussion in the said meeting, it was observed that a
written   examination   for   appointments   of   members   of
tribunals as a uniform policy would be neither feasible nor
desirable, due to,  inter alia , the following reasons: 
(i) The number of vacancies to tribunals per year is very
low,   and   in   some   tribunals   only   in   single   digits.   It
would   not   be   economically   or   practically   feasible   to
conduct an examination for five or six posts. , 
(ii) Most tribunals require appointment of members with
expertise in varied relevant fields, such as consumer
affairs,   economics,   law,   securities,   finance,   telecom,
electricity,   and   so   on.   A   single   written   examination
with   a   common   syllabus   would   not   be   possible   and
14

one may have to conduct a different examination for
each   different   area   of   expertise,   which   would   make
the whole process arbitrary and unwieldy. 
(iii) Competent,   eminent,   and   successful   persons   aged
over thirty five or forty or even fifty may not be willing
to   write   a   written   examination   and   then   have   their
marks   published   openly,   which   would   dissuade   a
large   number   of   people   who   may   be   desirable   from
applying. 
(iv) Persons   with   experience   of   fifteen   or   twenty   years
may  no   longer   have   the   requisite  examination  giving
skills, and a written examination may unduly favour
academics   or   researchers   as   opposed   to   people   who
are   in   the   field   practically   or   in   a   corporate
environment or in some other non academic field. 
(v) Conducting   a   written   examination   may   lengthen   the
entire   process   of   appointment,   which   already   takes
4­6   months   on   account   of   the   requirement   of
advertisement,   public   notice,   receipt   of   applications
and   verification   of   documents,   IB   inputs,   tax   and
medical reports, and then a personal interaction with
the Selection Committee. This may end up increasing
the   number   of   vacancies   in   the   tribunals,   which   is
not desirable. 
(vi) Prescribing   a   uniform   requirement   of   a   written
examination   across   states   would   fail   to   take   into
account   the   local   requirements   of   each   state   ­   for
instance,   the   number   of   applications   received   in   the
15

smaller   states   such   as   Assam   or   Goa   or   Sikkim   are
very   low,   and   sometimes   even   lesser   than   the
number   of   posts   advertised.   A   written   examination
may lead to greater difficulties in filling up the vacant
posts.
(vii) Prescribing   a   uniform   requirement   of   a   written
examination   across   tribunals   is   also   not   considered
desirable,   as   each   tribunal   has   its   own   eligibility
criteria and different categories of persons would fall
in   their   zone   of   consideration.   For   instance,   several
posts   can   only   be   manned   by   retired   judges,   and   it
would   not   be   appropriate   to   subject   judges   of   the
Supreme   Court   or   the   High   Courts   to   a   written
examination.   Equally,   very   few   people   are   actually
eligible   to   be   appointed   as   technical   members   to
specialised   tribunals   such   as   TDSAT   or   APTEL,   and
eminent   persons   in   the   field   of   telecom   or   electricity
may not wish to write examinations to leave lucrative
careers in their areas of expertise. This would lead to
the   tribunals   losing   out   on   desirable   persons,   who
may   otherwise   wish   to   join   these   tribunals   in   the
spirit of public service. 
3.1  Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India
has   further   submitted   that   based   on   the   further
discussions   in   the   meeting   held   on   13.01.2023   between
Union   of   India   and   all   the   States/UTs   to   consider   the
uniform   measures   to   guide   the   Selection   Committees   in
16

the   exercise   of   their   selection   processes,   it   has   been
proposed   that   the   following   proviso,   to   provide   for   the
issuance   of   necessary   instructions   to   guide   the   discretion
available   to   the   Selection   Committee,   could   be   considered
to be inserted below Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020: ­ 
“Provided that the Selection Committee shall be guided
by the instructions, as may be issued, by order, by the
Central   Government   from   time   to   time,   while   making
assessment   of   a   candidate   in   regard   to   his   suitability
for   appointment   as   President   or   member   in   the   State
Commission or the District Commission.”  
3.2 It is further submitted that in so far as the development of
uniform measures to be applicable to appointments in the
State   Commissions   and   the   District   Commissions
(President and Members) across the country is concerned,
the   following   measures,   keeping   in   view   the   level   of   the
posts,   the   statutory   functions   to   be   discharged   by   the
holders of these posts, the very  objective enshrined in the
Consumer   Protection   Act,   2019,   are   considered   to   be
formulated:­ 
17

a. The   selection   of   a   candidate   for   appointment   as   the
President   or   member   in   the   State   Commission   or   the
District   Commission   may   be   based   on   the   marks
secured by him, out of a total of 100 marks. The total
marks   (100)   may   be   the   sum   of;   (i)   60   marks   for   an
interview;   and,   (ii)   40   marks   for   certain   special
achievements of a candidate. 
b. The   aforesaid   formulation,   if   found   in   order   by   this
Hon'ble Court, can be treated as an instruction under
the above said proviso. 
c. The   rationale   behind   the   proposed   distribution   of
marks   in   such   a   way   where   the   interview   component
would outweigh the other, is to ensure the selection of
the   most   suitable   candidate,   given   the   level   of   the
posts and duties attached thereto. 
d. The distribution of 40 marks for  special achievements
may be considered as under: 
S.
No.  Criteria  Maximum
Marks Marking System
1. Number   of
years   of
experience  15 (i) For   the   minimum
number   of   years   of
experience   required   in
terms   of   the   rules
governing   the
recruitment   conditions
­ 10 marks 
(ii) For   additional
experience   of   every   2
years   ­   1   mark
(maximum 5 marks). 
In   case   of   experience   of   fewer
than   2   years,   maximum
18

marks   for   experience   of   2
years   i.e.   1   mark   may   be
apportioned   according   to   the
number   of   years   of
experience.   Experience   of
fewer than six months may be
ignored for this purpose. 
2. Higher 
Educational 
Qualification
s  15 (i) For Graduate ­ 6 marks
(ii) For Post Graduate – 6 
marks 
(iii) For PhD. ­ 3  marks 
3. Prior public 
service 
rendered  10 For   every   4   years   of   regular
service   rendered   in   or   under
the   Central/State
Governments   and
Constitutional   bodies   ­   2
marks (maximum 10 marks)
3.3 It   is   submitted   that   on   an   overall   consideration   of   the
deliberations, it appears that the conduct of a written test
which has several handicaps will not be feasible and shall
not be most suitable measure for the purpose of selection. 
19

4. While   opposing   the   present   appeals   Dr.   Uday   Prakash
Warnjikar   and   Dr.   Tushar   Mandalekar,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respective   respondents   have
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case the High Court has not committed any error in
declaring   Rule   3(2)(b)   and   Rule   4(2)(c)   and   Rule   6(9)   of
Rules,   2020   as   arbitrary,   unreasonable,   and   violative   of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 
4.1 It   is   submitted   that   the   bone   of   contention   of   the   present
respondent   is   to   have   the   highest   standards   and   strict
scrutiny   before   the   candidates   are   being   appointed   in   the
Consumer State Commission and District Commissions. It
is   submitted   that   the   selection   method   under   the   Rules,
2020 and the process adopted by the appellant will lead to
the   appointment   of   incompetent   candidates   to   adjudicate
the   consumer   disputes.   It   is   submitted   that   under   Rule
6(9),   the   selection   committee   is   empowered   with
uncontrolled   discretionary   powers   to   determine   its
procedure   in   the   appointment   of   the   President   and
Members   of   the   State   and   District   Commission.   It   is
20

submitted that such delegation of uncontrolled powers will
cause undesirable results. 
4.2 In support of their submissions that Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule
4(2)(c)   and   Rule   6(9)   of   Rules,   2020   are   arbitrary,
unreasonable,   and   violative   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution of India, it is submitted as under: ­
 
(a) That   the   selection   method   under   Rules,   2020   confers
un controlled   discretion   and   excessive   power   to   the
selection   committee   to   determine   its   procedure   to
recommend   candidates   to   be   appointed   is   arbitrary,
unreasonable   and   in   violation   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution of India;  
(b) Considering   the   nature   of   work,   the   candidate’s
competency   needs   to   be   tested   before   being
recommended   for   the   appointment   to   discharge
judicial functions;
(c)  In   the   absence   of   the   appointment   of   competent
candidates,  the  object  of  the   Consumer   Protection  Act
is likely to be frustrated; 
21

(d)  The   president   and   members   of   the   State   and   District
Commission   are   empowered   with   the   powers   of   the
Court. In  the appointment  of Judicial  Magistrate First
Class,   when   the   candidates   are   tested   by   written
examination and viva voce, the similar procedure to be
adopted   for   appointment   in   the   District   and   State
Commissions;  
(e)  The   transparency   and   selection   criteria   are   absent   in
the Rules, 2020; 
(g)  In   absence   of   transparency   in   the   matter   of
appointments   of   Chairman   and   Members,   there   is
strong   apprehension   of   political   and   executive
interference.
4.3 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   the   Law   Commission   in
its  272 nd
  Report  suggested  that  the  members of  the newly
constituted   tribunals   should   possess   the   qualifications
akin   to   the   judges   of   the   High   Court   and   District   Court.
The   Report   further   recommended   uniformity   in   the
appointments. 
22

4.4 It is further submitted that as such this Court in the case
of   UPCPBA   (supra)   directed   to   frame   model   rules   under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is submitted that by
the   said   judgment,   model   rules   were   approved   by   this
Court   and   accepted   by   all   the   parties.   It   is   submitted   by
adopting   the   model   rules,   many   states   notified   the
Consumer   Protection   (Appointment,   Salary,   Allowances
and   Conditions   of   Service   of   President   and   Members   of
State   Commission   and   District   Forum)   Rules,   2017
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Rules,   2017).   It   is   further
submitted that the State of Maharashtra also adopted and
approved   the   model   rules   on   24.05.2019   in   exercise   of
powers   conferred   under   the   provisions   of   the   Consumer
Protection   Act,   1986.   It   is   further   submitted   that   even
prior   thereto,   model   rules   2012   were   already   in   existence
in   the   State   of   Maharashtra   under   Section   30   of   the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the said rules already
had the provision of written examination of 100 marks for
aspiring   candidates/applicants   for   the   post   of   President
and Members of District Consumer Forum under Rule 10. 
23

4.5 It   is   further   submitted   that   as   observed   hereinabove   this
Court   approved  the   uniform   model  rules  for   appointment,
salary, service condition etc., for the effective adjudication
of consumer disputes under the Act, 1986. The said model
rules  were   adopted  by   all  the  parties.   It  is  submitted   that
the   adjudicatory   powers   of   the   consumer
fora/commissions   are   judicial   functions.   There   is   no
change   in   the   judicial   functions   of   the   President   and
Members of the State and District Commission. There is no
change in the judicial functions of President and Members
of the State and District Commission even post­Consumer
Protection   Act,   2019   (Act,   2019)   which   have   come   into
force   with   effect   from   20.07.2020.   It   is   submitted   that
there   is   no   change   in   the   legislative   scheme   concerning
adjudication of consumer disputes under the Act of 2019.
It is submitted that as such the Consumer Protection Act,
2019   has   come   into   force   with   effect   from   20.07.2020   by
repealing   the   erstwhile   statute   Consumer   Protection   Act,
1986.   It   is   submitted   that   the   sole   intention   of   the
legislature   is   to   provide   adequate   safeguards   to   the
consumers   due   to   drastic   changes   in   the   modern   market
24

and   the   constantly   emerging   vulnerability   of   the
consumers.   Under   the   Act,   2019,   the   pecuniary
jurisdictions   of   the   District   and   State   Commissions   are
enhanced   substantially.   However,   there   is   no   substantial
change   in   the   scheme   with   respect   to   the   adjudication   of
the consumer disputes. Therefore, consumer commissions
are   quasi­judicial   authorities   empowered   to   discharge
judicial   functions   with   the   adequate   powers   of   the   court,
including civil and criminal.     
4.6 It is submitted that under Section 71 of the Act, 2019, the
Commissions   are   empowered   with   the   powers   of   the   civil
court   and   under   Section   72,   the   Commissions   are
empowered with  the powers of  JMFC. It is submitted that
despite the above when the Rules, 2020 are framed by the
Central   Government   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Section
101 of the Act, 2019 which provides for the impugned  Rule
3(2)(b)   and   Rule   4(2)(c)   and   Rule   6(9)   made   the   things
worse than the prevailing, prior to Rules, 2020. 
4.7 It is  further  submitted that therefore, when  the  State  and
the District Commissions are performing the quasi­judicial
25

functions and judicial functions and exercising the powers
of   the   Court,   to   test   the   competence   of   the   candidate
written   examination   and   viva­voce   would   be   necessary.
Only   interviews   of   the   aspiring   candidates   would   lead   to
political   interference   and   undeserving   results   through
such a selection process.
4.8 It is further submitted that Rule 6(9) provides uncontrolled
discretion   to   the   Selection   Committee.   Uncontrolled
discretion in the matter of recommendations of candidates
to   be   appointed   to   discharge   judicial   functions   is   in   clear
violation   of   Article   14   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   It   is
submitted   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Madras   Bar
Association   (supra)   declared   that   “Article   14   clearly
includes a right to have the person’s rights adjudicated by
a   forum   which   exercises   judicial   powers   in   an   impartial
and   independent   manner,   consistent   with   the   recognized
principles   of   adjudication.”   It   is   submitted   that   in   the
present case under Rule 6(9) the Central Government has
granted   complete   discretion   to   determine   the   selection
26

procedure without laying down criteria and standards and
the same is unreasonable and arbitrary. 
4.9 It is further submitted that even the said provision is also
unreasonable   on   the   ground   that   there   is   no   check   and
balance   under   Rules,   2020   over   the   Selection   Committee.
The   Selection   Committee   has   absolute   discretion   in   the
recommendations of the candidates. 
4.10 It   is   further   submitted   that   there   are   four   sources   of
candidates   to   be   appointed   as   president   and   members   of
the   Commissions,   viz.,   serving   judicial   officers,   retired
judicial officers, advocates, or any other individuals having
certain knowledge and experience. It is submitted that the
Rules   direct   the   selection   committee   to   take   into   account
suitability,   a   record   of   past   performance,   integrity   and
adjudicatory   experience.   The   selection   committee   may
consider   the   suitability   of   the   retired   or   serving   judicial
candidates   based   on   available   record,   however,   the
suitability   of   the   candidates   coming   from   non­judicial
sources,   cannot   be   determined   without   testing   the   overall
competency.   It   is   submitted   that   the   appointments   with
27

bias   and   without   transparency   would   frustrate   the   object
of the Consumer Protection Act. 
4.11 It is further submitted that the Rules, 2020 as such nullify
the judgment of this Court in the case of  UPCPBA (supra).
4.12 It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in
the case of  Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India &
Anr.; (2021  SCC OnLine SC 463)   in Writ Petition (C) No.
502/2021 decided on 14.07.2021 that the permissibility of
legislative override in this country should be in accordance
with the principles laid down by this Court in the catena of
decision which are as under: ­ 
“44.   The   permissibility   of   legislative   override   in   this   country
should be in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court
in the aforementioned as well as other judgments, which have been
culled out as under:
a) The effect of the judgments of the Court can be nullified by
a legislative act removing the basis of the judgment. Such law can be
retrospective.   Retrospective   amendment   should   be   reasonable   and
not   arbitrary   and   must   not   be   violative   of   the   fundamental   rights
guaranteed under the Constitution. 
b)   The   test   for   determining   the   validity   of   a   validating
legislation   is   that   the   judgment   pointing   out   the   defect   would   not
have been passed, if the altered position as sought to be brought in
by   the   validating   statute   existed   before   the   Court   at   the   time   of
rendering   its   judgment.   In   other   words,   the   defect   pointed   out
28

should   have   been   cured   such   that   the   basis   of   the   judgement
pointing out the defect is removed.
c)   Nullification   of   mandamus   by   an   enactment   would   be
impermissible   legislative   exercise   [See   :   S.R.   Bhagwat   (supra)].   Even
interim   directions   cannot   be   reversed   by   a   legislative   veto
[See   :   Cauvery   Water   Disputes   Tribunal   (supra)   and   Medical   Council
of India   v.   State of Kerala .
d)   Transgression   of   constitutional   limitations   and   intrusion
into the judicial power  by  the legislature is violative of the principle
of   separation   of   powers,   the   rule   of   law   and   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution of India.”
4.13 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   the   criteria   of   having
experience   of   minimum   20   years   for   appointment   of
Member   in   the   State   Commission   under   Rule   3(2)(b)   and
criteria   of   having   experience   of   minimum   15   years   for
appointment   of   Member   in   District   Commission   as   per
Rule   4(2)(c)   is   absolutely   arbitrary   and   illegal   and
unconstitutional   and   contrary   to   the   provisions   of   Article
217   and   233   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   It   is   further
submitted that  even  the same is violative  of the  judgment
and order passed by this Court in the case of   Madras Bar
Association (supra). 
4.14 It is submitted that the High Court has rightly quashed the
provision   of   Rule   4(2)(c)   as   the   requirement   of   having
29

experience   of   15   years   for   a   lawyer   in   order   to   get   the
appointment as Member in District Forum/Commission is
arbitrary   and   illegal.   It   is   submitted   that   even   in
accordance   with   the   Article   233   of   the   Constitution   of
India   a   lawyer   needs   to   have   only   seven   years   of   practice
as   an   advocate   in   High   Court.   Even   in   according   to   the
provisions   of   Rule   4(1)   a   person   who   is   eligible   to   be
appointed as a District Judge (having minimum experience
of seven years as per Article 233 of Constitution of India) is
qualified   to   be   appointed   as   President   of   District
Commission. But in order to be appointed as Member, the
Section   4(2)(c)   mandates   a   minimum   experience   of   15
years which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. 
4.15 It   is   further   submitted   that   the   scheme   envisaged   in
appointment   of   President   under   Rule   3(1)   for   President   of
State   Commission   has   a   different   criteria   and   that   of
Member   under   Rule   3(2)(b)   is   different   and   distinct.   The
person   can   be   qualified   to   be   a   President   if   he   is   or   has
been   a   judge   of   High   Court.   However,   in   order   to   get
30

appointment   as   a   Member   of   State   Commission   the   Rule
3(2)(b) mandates a minimum experience of 15 years, which
is   illegal   and   violative   of   Article   14,   because   the
requirement   of   qualification   and   experience   of   a   lawyer   to
get   appointed   as   a   High   Court   Judge   is   only   ten   years   as
per Article 217 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted
that   therefore,   the   High   Court   has   rightly   declared   that
Rule   3(2)(b)   and   Rule   4(2)(c)   and   Rule  6(9)   of   Rules,  2020
as   ultra­virus,   arbitrary   and   violative   of   the   Article   14   of
the   Constitution   of   India.     It   is   submitted   that   while
holding   so   the   High   Court   has   discussed   and   considered
the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Madras   Bar
Association (supra) : (2021) 7 SCC 369. 
4.16 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.    
5. Heard   Shri   R.   Venkataramani,   learned   Attorney   General
for   India,   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant(s)   and   Dr.
Uday   Prakash   Warunjikar   and   Dr.   Tushar   Mandalekar,
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respective
respondent(s). 
31

6. By the  impugned judgment and order  the  High  Court has
declared Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) and  Rule 6(9) of   the
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  as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of Article
14  of   the   Constitution   of  India.  Rule   3(2)(b)  and  Rule  4(2)
(c)   and   Rule   6(9)   of   Rules,   2020   which   are   declared   to   be
unconstitutional read as under: ­ 
“3.   Qualifications   for   appointment   of   President   and
members of the State Commission .—
xxx
(2)   A   person   shall   not   be   qualified   for   appointment   as   a
member   unless   he   is   of   not   less   than   forty   years   of   age
and possesses—
xxx
( b ) a bachelor's degree from a recognised university and is
a person of ability, integrity and standing, and has special
knowledge   and   professional   experience   of   not   less   than
twenty   years   in   consumer   affairs,   law,   public   affairs,
administration,   economics,   commerce,   industry,   finance,
management,   engineering,   technology,   public   health   or
medicine:
4.   Qualifications   for   appointment   of   President   and
member of District Commission .—(1) A person shall not
be qualified for appointment as President, unless he is, or
has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge.
(2)   A   person   shall   not   be   qualified   for   appointment   as
member unless he—
xxx
32

( c )   is   a   person   of   ability,   integrity   and   standing,   and
having   special   knowledge   and   professional   experience   of
not less than fifteen years in consumer affairs, law, public
affairs,   administration,   economics,   commerce,   industry,
finance,   management,   engineering,   technology,   public
health or medicine.
xxx
6. Procedure of appointment .
xxx
(9) The Selection Committee shall determine its procedure
for   making   its   recommendation   keeping   in   view   the
requirements   of   the   State   Commission   or   the   District
Commission and after taking into account the suitability,
record   of   past   performance,   integrity   and   adjudicatory
experience.
xxx
6.1 While   considering   the   correctness   of   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   and   while
considering   the   constitutional   validity   of   Rule   3(2)(b)   and
Rule   4(2)(c)   and   Rule   6(9)   of   Rules,   2020,   the   earlier
decisions   of   this   Court,   more   particularly,   the   decision   in
the case of  UPCPBA (supra)  which was under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 is required to be referred to. The issue
with   respect   to   the   conditions   of   eligibility   for   appointment
of   non­judicial   members   was   one   of   the   issues   before   this
Court   in   the   case   of   UPCPBA   (supra).   This   Court   earlier
constituted   a   committee   presided   over   by   Mr.   Justice   Arijit
Pasayat,   a   former   Judge   of   this   Court   to   examine   various
33

issues including the conditions of eligibility for appointment
of   non­judicial   members.   The   Committee   in   its   interim
report   observed   that   the   Fora   constituted   under   the
Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986   do   not   function   as
effectively   as   expected   due   to   a   poor   organizational   set­up;
grossly  inadequate infrastructure; absence of adequate and
trained  manpower  and  “ lack   of  qualified   members ” in  the
adjudicating  bodies. This Court in paragraphs 4 to 6 noted
and observed as under: 
“ 4 .   The   quality   of   presiding   members,   especially   of   non­
judicial   members   at   the   State   and   district   levels   is   poor.
One of the reasons is that the remuneration which is being
paid to non­judicial members of consumer fora varies from
State to State and is too meagre to attract  qualified talent.
Most   of   the   non­judicial   members   are   not   even   capable   of
writing   or   dictating   small   orders.   At   certain   places   non­
judicial   members   act   in   unison   against   the   Presiding
Officer, while passing orders contrary to law, damaging the
reputation   of   the   adjudicating   body.   The   Presidents,   as   a
result, prefer a situation where such non­judicial members
absent   themselves   from   work   if   only   so   that   judicial   work
can   be   carried   out   by   the   Presiding   Judge   impartially   and
objectively.   Many   non­judicial   members   do   not   maintain
punctuality and others attend to work sporadically once or
twice   a   week.   The   Committee   has   observed   that   the
problem   lies   in   —   (i)   absence   of   proper   remuneration;   (ii)
appointment of former judicial officers who lack motivation
and   zeal;   (iii)   appointment   of   practising   lawyers   as
Presiding   Officers   of   District   Fora;   and   (iv)   political   and
bureaucratic   interference   in   appointments.   Many   of   the
34

non­judicial   members   attend   to   the   place   of   work   only   to
sign   orders   which   have   been   drafted   by   the   Presiding
Officer.
5.   The  Committee has furnished  concrete examples of  how
bureaucratic   and   political   influence   has   marred   the
selection   process   as   a   result   of   which   the   functioning   of
consumer   fora   is   detrimentally   affected.   Three   instances
furnished in the Report of the Committee provided a telling
example of the state of affairs:
“( 15 )   The   Committee   could   make   out   that   there   has
been   considerable   bureaucratic   and   political
influence/interference   in   the   “selection   process”   and
functioning   of   the   consumer   fora.   Just   to   cite   a   few
instances, the Committee found that relatives of politicians,
bureaucrats   and   judicial   fraternity   have   been   selected.   A
non­Judicial   Member   Mr   Jamal   Akhtar   posted   at   District
Forum,   Meerut   has   been   absenting   without   permission
since   11­5­2015.   The   State   Government   has   failed   to   take
any   action   against   him.   Even   the   plea   of   the   President,
State   Commission   has   gone   unheeded.   The   result   is   that
his   post   has   not   been   declared   vacant   and   another   non­
Judicial Member posted elsewhere has been attached in his
place.
( 16 ) One non­Judicial Member who had her first term
at   Lucknow   and   has   now   been   enjoying   her   second   term,
having   been   appointed   for   District   Forum,   Barabanki   but
has been attached to Greater Noida and as per the reports,
comes to Forum once or twice a week. Another woman non­
Judicial   Member   who   happens   to   be   wife   of   a   bureaucrat
was   appointed   for   District   Forum,   Baghpat   but   was
attached/posted   at   Greater   Noida.   These   few   instances
make it crystal clear that there is definite political influence
and   interference   and   in   such   a   scenario,   the   work   of
District Consumer Fora is affected as it results in lowering
the morale of the President.
35

( 17 )   In   Haryana,   a   non­Judicial   Woman   Member
did/does   not   attend   the   District   Forum   regularly,   as   she
has to travel around 150/160 km every day. The President
of  one District   Forum  who  happens  to  be  former  President
of   Bar   Association   has   been   serving   the   second   term   as
President.   Such   non­Judicial   Members   manage   to   get
selected   and   then   misuse   their   position   as   Members,   as
they call themselves “Judges”.”
6.   The   selection   of   persons   as   Presiding   Officers   and   as
Members   of   the   fora   lacks   transparency   without   a   fixed
criteria   for   selection.   The   Committee   has,   in   our   view   with
justification,   proposed   that   a   written   test   should   be
conducted   to   assess   the   knowledge   of   persons   who   apply
for   posts   in   the   District   Fora.   Issues   of   conflict   of   interest
also   arise   when   persons   appointed   from   a   local   area   are
appointed to a District Forum in the same area.”
Ultimately in paragraph 28, this Court issued the following 
directions: ­ 
“28.1.   The   Union   Government   shall   for   the   purpose   of
ensuring   uniformity   in   the   exercise   of   the   rule­making
power   under   Section   10(3)   and   Section   16(2)   of   the
Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986   frame   model   rules   for
adoption   by   the  State   Governments.  The   model   rules   shall
be   framed   within   four   months   and   shall   be   submitted   to
this Court for its approval;
28.2.   The   Union   Government   shall   also   frame   within   four
months   model   rules   prescribing   objective   norms   for
implementing   the   provisions   of   Section   10(1)( b ),   Section
16(1)( b )   and   Section   20(1)( b )   in   regard   to   the   appointment
of   members   respectively   of   the   District   Fora,   State
Commissions and National Commission;
36

28.3.   The Union Government shall while framing the model
rules have due regard to the formulation of objective norms
for the assessment of the ability, knowledge and experience
required to be possessed by  the members of the respective
fora   in   the   domain   areas   referred   to   in   the   statutory
provisions  mentioned  above.  The  model  rules shall provide
for the payment of salary, allowances and for the conditions
of   service   of   the   members   of   the   consumer   fora
commensurate   with   the   nature   of   adjudicatory   duties   and
the   need   to   attract   suitable   talent   to   the   adjudicating
bodies.   These   rules   shall   be   finalised   upon   due
consultation   with   the   President   of   the   National   Consumer
Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   within   the   period
stipulated above;
28.4.   Upon   the   approval   of   the   model   rules   by   this   Court,
the   State   Governments   shall   proceed   to   adopt   the   model
rules   by   framing   appropriate   rules   in   the   exercise   of   the
rule­making   powers   under   Section   30   of   the   Consumer
Protection Act, 1986;
28.5.   The   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal
Commission   is   requested   to   formulate   regulations   under
Section   30­A   with   the   previous   approval   of   the   Central
Government within a period of three months from today in
order   to   effectuate   the   power   of   administrative   control
vested   in   the   National   Commission   over   the   State
Commissions   under   Section   24­B(1)( iii )   and   in   respect   of
the   administrative   control   of   the   State   Commissions   over
the District Fora in terms of Section 24­B(2) as explained in
this   judgment   to   effectively   implement   the   objects   and
purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
6.2 That   thereafter,   vide   a   further   order   dated   18.05.2018
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer
Protection   Bar   Association   –   Civil   Appeal   No.
37

2740/2007   reported   in   (2018)   7   SCC   423 ,   this   Court
considered the draft model rules which were framed by the
Union of India. Before this Court the model rules came to
be   accepted   by   the   counsel   representing   all   the   parties
before   the   Court.   Therefore,   this   Court   directed   that   the
State   Governments   shall   frame   appropriate   rules   in
exercise of the rule­making power under Section 30 of the
Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986   in   accordance   with   the
Final Draft Model Rules submitted by the Union of India. It
appears that thereafter many States notified the Consumer
Protection (appointment, salary, allowances and conditions
of   service   of   President   and   Members   of   the   State
Commission and District Forum) Rules, 2017. Rules, 2017
which   were   adopted   provided   that   in   every   cases,   the
selection   of   Members   of   the   District   Fora   and   State
Commission   shall   be   on   the   basis   of   a   written   test   of   two
papers   (Rules   5   and   7).   It   appears   that   even   the   State   of
Maharashtra   also   adopted   and   approved   the   model   rules
on   24.05.2019   and   framed   Rules,   2019   which   had   a
written   examination   of   200   marks.   It   provided   that   State
Commission shall hold the final examination of 250 marks
38

for   the   post   of   Members.   Out   of   250   marks,   200   marks
shall be for written examination and 50 marks shall be for
viva­voce   examination.   In   the   case   of   Madras   Bar
Association   (supra)   decided   on   27.11.2020   –   (2017)   7
SCC   369 ,   this   Court   directed   that   while   considering
Tribunal/Appellate   Tribunal   and   other   Authorities
(Qualifications, Experience and other conditions of Service
of   Members),   the   Rules,   2020   shall   be   amended   to   make
advocates   with   an   experience   of   at   least   10   years   eligible
for appointment as judicial members in the tribunals. That
thereafter,   the   Central   Government   framed   Tribunal
Reforms   (Rationalisation   and   Conditions   of   Service)
Ordinance,   2021   which   fell   for   consideration   before   this
Court   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   502/2021   decided   on
14.07.2021   –   2021   SCC   Online   SC   463 .   In   the   said
decision   this   Court   also   considered   the   permissibility   of
legislative override. After considering catena of decisions of
this   Court   on   permissibility   of   legislative   override   this
Court observed and held in paragraphs 42 to 44 as under:
­
39

“42.   The   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Madan   Mohan
Pathak   v.   Union   of   India   (1978)   2   SCC   50   requires   a   close
scrutiny   as   it   was   adverted   to   and   relied   upon   by   both
sides. A writ petition was filed in the High Court of Calcutta
for   a   mandamus   directing   the   Life   Insurance   Corporation
(LIC)   to   act   in   accordance   with   the   terms   of   settlement
dated   24.01.1974   read   with   administrative   instructions
dated   29.03.1974.   The   writ   petition   was   allowed   by   the
learned single Judge against which a Letters Patent Appeal
(LPA) was preferred by the LIC. During the pendency of the
LPA,   the   LIC   (Modification   of   Settlement)   Act,   1976   came
into   force.   The   LPA   was   withdrawn   in   view   of   the
subsequent   legislation   and   the   decision   of   the   learned
single   Judge   became   final.   Validity   of   the   said   statute   was
assailed   in   a   writ   petition   filed   under   Article   32   by   the
employees   of   the   LIC.   Justice   Bhagwati,   speaking   for   the
majority,   was   of   the   opinion   that   the   judgment   of   the
Calcutta   High   Court   was   not   a   mere   declaratory   judgment
holding   an   impost   or   tax   as   invalid   so   that   a   validating
statute can remove the defect pointed out in the judgment.
He   observed  that   the  judgment   of  the  Calcutta   High  Court
gave   effect   to   the   rights   of   the   petitioners   by   mandamus,
directing the LIC to pay annual cash bonus. As long as the
judgment   of   the   learned   single   Judge   is   not   reversed   in
appeal,   it   cannot   be   disregarded   or   ignored.   The   LIC   was
held   to   be   bound   by   the   writ   of   mandamus   issued   by   the
Calcutta   High   Court.   Justice   Beg,   in   his   concurrent
opinion,   held   that   the   rights   which   accrued   to   the
employees   on   the   basis   of   the   mandamus   issued   by   the
High   Court   cannot   be   taken   away   either   directly   or
indirectly   by   subsequent   legislation.   Thereafter,   Madan
Mohan Pathak   (supra) came up for discussion in   Sri Ranga
Match Industries   v.   Union of India 1994 Supp (2) SCC 726.
Justice   Jeevan   Reddy   was   of   the   opinion   that   the   Madan
Mohan   Pathak   case   cannot   be   treated   as   an   authority   for
the   proposition   that   mandamus   cannot   be   set   aside   by   a
legislative act. Justice Hansaria was not in agreement with
such view. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in   A.V.
40

Nachane   v.   Union   of   India   (1982)   1   SCC   205,   Justice
Hansaria held that the legal stand taken by Justice Beg in
the   Madan   Mohan   Pathak   case   had   received   majority's
endorsement and it was because of this that retrospectivity
given to the relevant rule assailed in   A.V. Nachane   was held
to   have   nullified   the   effect   of   the   writ   and   was   accordingly
invalid. In view of the difference of opinion, the matter was
referred   to   a   larger   bench.   We   are   informed   by   the   leaned
Amicus   Curiae   that   the   difference   of   opinion   could   not   be
resolved as the case was settled out of court.
43.   In   Virender Singh Hooda   (2004) 12 SCC 588, this Court
did not accept the contention of the petitioners therein that
vested   rights   cannot   be   taken   away   by   retrospective
legislation.   However,   it   was   observed   that   taking   away   of
such   rights   would   be   impermissible   if   there   is   violation   of
Articles   14,   16   or   any   other   constitutional   provision.   The
appointments already made in implementation of a decision
of   this   Court   were   protected   with   the   reason   that   “the   law
does not permit the legislature to take away what has been
granted   in   implementation   of   the   Court's   decision.   Such   a
course   is   impermissible.”   This   Court   in   Cauvery   Water
Disputes   Tribunal   1993   Supp   (1)   SCC   96   (2)   declared   the
ordinance which sought to displace an interim order passed
by  the   statutory   tribunal  as  unconstitutional  as  it   set  side
an individual decision   inter partes   and therefore, amounted
to   a   legislative   exercise   of   judicial   power.   When   a
mandamus issued by the Mysore High Court was sought to
be   annulled   by   a   legislation,   this   Court   quashed   the   same
in   S.R. Bhagwat   v.   State of Mysore (1995)   6 SCC 16 on the
ground   that   it   was   impermissible   legislative   exercise.
Setting at naught a decision of the Court without removing
the   defect   pointed   out   in   the   judgment   would   sound   the
death  knell  of  the  rule  of  law.  The  rule  of  law  would  cease
to have any meaning, because then it would be open to the
Government to defy a law and yet to get away with it. 50
44.   The permissibility of legislative override in this country
should   be   in   accordance   with   the   principles   laid   down   by
41

this   Court   in   the   aforementioned   as   well   as   other
judgments, which have been culled out as under:
a) The effect of the judgments of the Court can be nullified
by   a   legislative   act   removing   the   basis   of   the   judgment.
Such   law   can   be   retrospective.   Retrospective   amendment
should   be   reasonable   and   not   arbitrary   and   must   not   be
violative   of   the   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under   the
Constitution. 
b)   The   test   for   determining   the   validity   of   a   validating
legislation   is   that   the   judgment   pointing   out   the   defect
would   not   have   been   passed,   if   the   altered   position   as
sought   to   be   brought   in   by   the   validating   statute   existed
before   the   Court   at   the   time   of   rendering   its   judgment.   In
other words, the defect pointed out should have been cured
such   that   the   basis   of   the   judgement   pointing   out   the
defect is removed.
c)   Nullification   of   mandamus   by   an   enactment   would   be
impermissible   legislative   exercise   [See:   S.R.
Bhagwat   (supra)].   Even   interim   directions   cannot   be
reversed by a legislative veto [See :   Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal   (supra)   and   Medical   Council   of   India   v.   State   of
Kerala  (2019) 13 SCC 185].
d) Transgression of constitutional limitations and intrusion
into   the   judicial   power   by   the   legislature   is   violative   of   the
principle   of   separation   of   powers,   the   rule   of   law   and   of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
6.3 In the said decision, this Court struck down and declared
that   first   proviso   to   Section   184(1)   of   the   Finance   Act,
2017,   which   provided   for   50   years   minimum   age   for
appointment   as   Chairman   or  Member   as   unconstitutional
42

by observing that the said first proviso to Section 184 (1) is
in   violation   of   the   doctrine   of   separation   of   powers   as   the
judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Madras   Bar
Association Vs. Union of India & Anr. – MBA III ­ (2017)
7 SCC 369  decided on 27.11.2020, has been frustrated by
an impermissible legislative override.
6.4 Taking into consideration the aforesaid decisions, the High
Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   has   rightly
observed   and  held   that   Rule  3(2)(b),  Rule  4(2)(c)  and   Rule
6(9) of the Rules, 2020 which are contrary to the decisions
of   this   Court   in   the   cases   of   UPCPBA   (supra)   and   the
Madras Bar Association (supra)   are unconstitutional and
arbitrary. 
6.5 Even   otherwise   also   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   Rule   6(9)
lacks   transparency   and   it   confers   uncontrolled   discretion
and   excessive   power   to   the   Selection   Committee.   Under
Rule 6(9), the  Selection Committee is empowered with the
uncontrolled   discretionary   power   to   determine   its
procedure   to   recommend   candidates   to   be   appointed   as
43

President   and   Members   of   the   State   and   District
Commission.   The   transparency   and   selection   criteria   are
absent under Rule 6(9). In absence of transparency in the
matter   of   appointments   of   President   and   Members   and   in
absence   of   any   criteria   on   merits   the   undeserving   and
unqualified   persons   may   get   appointment   which   may
frustrate   the   object   and   purpose   of   the   Consumer
Protection Act. It cannot be disputed that the Commissions
are   empowered   with   the   powers   of   court   and   are   quasi­
judicial   authorities   and   empowered   to   discharge   judicial
powers   with   the   adequate   powers   of   the   court   including
civil and criminal. Therefore, the  standards expected from
the   members   of   the   tribunal   should   be   as   nearly   as
possible   as   applicable   to   the   appointment   of   judges
exercising   such   powers.   Under   Rule   6(9)   of   Rules,   2020,
the   Selection   Committee   is   having   power   to   determine   its
own   procedure.   Such   provisions   are   also   giving   excessive
and   uncontrolled   discretionary   powers   to   the   Selection
Committee.     As   rightly   observed   and   held   by   the   High
Court,   considering   the   object   on   behalf   of   the   Consumer
Protection   Act,   2019,   such   uncontrolled   discretion   power
44

to determine its procedure for making its recommendation
for   appointment   of   President   and   Members   of   the   District
and the State Commissions is arbitrary and unreasonable.
It   is   always   desirable   that   while   making   the   appointment
as   Members   of   the   District   Fora   and/or   the   State
Commission there is a need to assess the skill, ability, and
the   competency   of   the   candidates   before   they   are
empanelled   and   recommended   to   the   State   Government.
The   Rules,   2020   do   not   contemplate   written   examination
so   as   to   test   the   merits   of   the   candidate.   In   the   case   of
UPCPBA   (supra) ,   this   Court   expressed   deep   concern   over
the   bureaucratic   and   political   interference   in   process   of
appointments. 
6.6 At this stage, it is required to be noted that mechanism of
having   written   examination   was   confirmed   by   this   Court
which has been removed under the new Rules, 2020. 
6.7 At  this   stage,   it   is   required  to   be  noted   that   earlier  under
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there were Rules, 2017 in
so   far   as   some   of   the   States   are   concerned   and   Rules,
45

2019   so   far   as   the   State   of   Maharashtra   is   concerned,
which   provided   for   a   written   examination   and   viva   voce,
which was under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
6.8 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been repealed and
the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   2019   has   come   into   force
w.e.f. 24.07.2020 with a sole intention to provide adequate
safeguards   to   the   consumers   and   the   pecuniary
jurisdiction of the District Fora and State Commissions are
enhanced   substantially.   However,   there   is   no   substantial
change   in   the   scheme   with   respect   to   the   adjudication   of
the   consumer   disputes.   No   justification   at   all   is   shown   to
do   away   with   the   written   examination   while   framing   the
Rules,   2020   under   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   2019.
Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, the Rule
6(9)   of   the   Rules,   2020   is   unconstitutional,   arbitrary   and
violative   of   Article   14   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   more
particularly,   when   the   same   is   wholly   impermissible   to
override/overrule   the   earlier   decisions   of   this   Court   and
that   too   without   any   justification.   We   are   in   complete
agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
46

7. Now so far as the Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) of the Rules,
2020   are   concerned,   the   High   Court   has   rightly   quashed
the  said provisions  which  provided for   having  a  minimum
20 years’ experience for appointment as a Member in State
Commission under Rule 3(2)(b) and having a minimum 15
years’ experience for appointment as a Member in District
Commission under Rule 4(2)(c). 
7.1 It   is   required   to   be   noted   that   under   provision   4(1)   of
Rules, 2020, a person who is eligible to be appointed as a
district   judge   (having   minimum   experience   of   7   years)   is
qualified   to   be   appointed   as   President   of   the   District
Commission   but   in   order   to   be   appointed   as   a   Member,
Section   4(2)(c)   mandates   a   minimum   experience   of   15
years   which   is   rightly   held   to   be   violative   of   Article   14   of
the Constitution.         
7.2 Similarly providing 20 years’ experience under Rule 3(2)(b)
also   rightly   held  to  be  arbitrary  and  violative  of  Article  14
of   the   Constitution.   It   is   required   to   be   noted   that   under
Section   3(2)(b),   a   presiding   officer   of   a   Court   having
experience of 10 years is eligible for becoming President of
47

the State Commission. Even under Section 3(1) a judge of
the   High   Court,   present   or   former,   shall   be   qualified   for
appointment   of   the   President.   As   per   Article   233   of   the
Constitution,   a   lawyer   needs   to   have   only   7   years   of
practice   as   an   advocate   in   High   Court.   Under   the
circumstances   to   provide  20  years’  experience  under  Rule
3(2)(b) is rightly held to be unconstitutional, arbitrary and
violative   of   the   Article   14   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   We
are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High
Court.  At   this   stage,   it  is  required   to  be  noted  that   in  the
case   of   Madras   Bar   Association   (supra)   –   MBA   III ,   this
Court directed to consider 10 years’ experience, after detail
reasoning.  
8. In  view  of  the  above  and  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  we
see   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the   impugned   judgment
and order passed by the High Court declaring Rule 3(2)(b),
Rule   4(2)(c)   and   Rule   6(9)   of   the   Consumer   Protection
(Qualification   for   appointment,   method   of   recruitment,
procedure   of   appointment,   term   of   office,   resignation   and
removal   of   President   and   Members   of   State   Commission
48

and   District   Commission)   Rules,   2020   as   arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The Central Government and the concerned State
Governments   have   to   amend   Rules,   2020,   more
particularly,   Rule   6(9)   of   the   Rules,   2020,   providing   that
the   Selection   Committee   shall   follow   the   procedure   for
appointment   as   per   Model   Rules,   2017   and   to   make   the
appointment   of   President   and   Members   of   the   State
Commission   and   the   District   Commission   on   the   basis   of
the performance in written test consisting of two papers of
100   marks   each   and   50   marks   for   viva   voce   and   the
written   test   consisting   of   two   papers   may   be   as   per   the
following schemes: ­ 
Paper Topics Nature   of
test Max.
mark
s Duration
Paper­I (a)   General
Knowledge   and
current affairs
(b)   Knowledge   of
Constitution of India
(c)   Knowledge   of
various   Consumers
related   Laws   as
indicated   in   the
Schedule  Objective
Type 100  2 hours
Paper­
II (a)   One   Essay   on
topics   chosen   from
issues   on   trade   and Descriptive
type 100 3 hours
49

commerce   consumer
related   issues   or
Public Affairs.
(b) One case study of
a   consumer   case   for
testing the abilities of
analysis   and   cogent
drafting of orders.
 
8.1 The   Central   Government   and   the   concerned   State
Governments have also to come with an amendment in the
Rules,   2020   to   provide   10   years’   experience   to   become
eligible   for   appointment   of   President   and   Member   of   the
State   Commission   as   well   as   the   District   Commission
instead  of 20 years  and  15  years respectively, provided  in
Rule   3(2)(b)   and   Rule   4(2)(c)   which   has  been   struck  down
to   the   extent   providing   20   years   and   15   years   of
experience, respectively.   Till the suitable amendments are
made   in   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   as   above,   in   exercise   of   powers
under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   to   do
complete justice, we direct that in future and hereinafter, a
50

person   having   bachelor’s   degree   from   a   recognized
University   and   who   is   a   person   of   ability,   integrity   and
standing,   and   having   special   knowledge   and   professional
experience   of   not   less   than   10   years   in   consumer   affairs,
law,   public   affairs,   administration,   economics,   commerce,
industry,   finance,   management,   engineering,   technology,
public health or medicine, shall be treated as qualified for
appointment   of   President   and   Members   of   the   State
Commission.   Similarly,   a   person   of   a   person   of   ability,
integrity  and   standing,   and   having   special   knowledge  and
professional   experience   of   not   less   than   10   years   in
consumer   affairs,   law,   public   affairs,   administration,
economics,   commerce,   industry,   finance,   management,
engineering,   technology,   public   health   or   medicine,   shall
be   treated   as   qualified   for   appointment   of   President   and
Members   of   the   District   Commissions.   We   also   direct
under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   that   for
appointment   of   President   and   Members   of   the   State
Commission   and   District   Commission,   the   appointment
shall   be  made   on   the   basis   of  performance   in  written   test
consisting of two papers as per the following scheme: ­ 
51

Paper Topics Nature   of
test Max.
mark
s Duration
Paper­I (a)   General
Knowledge   and
current affairs
(b)   Knowledge   of
Constitution of India
(c)   Knowledge   of
various   Consumers
related   Laws   as
indicated   in   the
Schedule  Objective
Type 100  2 hours
Paper­
II (a)   One   Essay   on
topics   chosen   from
issues   on   trade   and
commerce   consumer
related   issues   or
Public Affairs.
(b) One case study of
a   consumer   case   for
testing the abilities of
analysis   and   cogent
drafting of orders. Descriptive
type 100 3 hours
8.3 The   qualifying   marks   in   each   paper   shall   be   50   per   cent
and there shall be viva voce of 50 marks. Therefore, marks
to   be   allotted   out   of   250,   which   shall   consist   of   a   written
test consisting two papers, each of 100 marks and the 50
marks on the basis of viva voce.
52

Present   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   terms   of   the   above
directions.  
    
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (M.M. SUNDRESH)
NEW DELHI, 
MARCH 03, 2023.
53