Bombay High Court quashes provisions of Consumer Protection Rules 2020

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 which govern appointment of president and members to State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions..The judgment was delivered in two pleas challenging the 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, 2020..The following Rules were the cause of grievance: Rule 3(2) - prescribed a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of president and members of State Commission;Rule 4(2)(c)experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of president and members of District Commission; andRule 6(9) provided for the selection committee to determine its procedure for making its recommendations keeping in view the requirement of the Commission..A Bench of Justice SB Shukre and AS Kilor held that the above three provisions were in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution and quashed them.Consequentially, the Central government was directed to frame new Rules substituting the above three Rules within 4 weeks. .The Bench referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association and Madras Bar Association v Union of India which stated that the judicial office is essentially a public trust and persons of high integrity and expertise are expected to hold the position of judge.The Court held that the Rules under challenge were "circumventing" the ruling of the Supreme Court. .The two petitions were - a public interest litigation by Vijaykumar Dighe, and a writ petition filed by Dr. Mahendra Limaye.They had approached the Court through their respective lawyers after being aggrieved by an advertisement issued for the posts of president and members of District and State Commissions of Maharashtra on February 2, 2021.The petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside of the notice as well..The Bench not only quashed and set aside the vacancy notices, but also clarified that the process of selection which had been initiated pursuant to such notice would stood cancelled. "Fresh process of selection of members of the State Commission, President and the members of the District Commission be initiated in accordance with the amended Rules and completed at the earliest," the order stated. .The Central government requested that the judgment be kept in abeyance for 4 weeks considering the judgment will have nationwide effect. However, advocate Tushar Mandlekar appearing for Limaye opposed the prayer on the grounds that during the period of abeyance, the State may issue appointment orders in favour of the candidates already selected..However finding substance in the Centre's submission, the Court kept the judgment in abeyance for two weeks making it clear that during the said period, no appointment orders should be issued. .[Read judgment]