New Rules on qualifications of consumer forum members yet to be finalized: Madras High Court told

After the Bombay High Court recently struck down certain rules on the appointment of members to State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, the Union government is in the process of initiating changes on the issue, the Madras High Court was told on Friday (Sunil Shete v. Chief Secretary to Government and anr)..The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu was told that the Centre had sought suggestions on the matter from states, and that the Tamil Nadu government had provided the same. However, the matter was yet to be finalized. .Chief Justice Banerjee also noted that the process is underway to nominate a new High Court judge to be part of the Committee tasked with the selection of consumer forum members. .The earlier nominee of the Chief Justice, Justice MM Sundresh, was recently elevated to the Supreme Court. The subsequent nominee, Justice TS Sivagnanam, has been recommended for a transfer to the Calcutta High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium. .As such, the Committee could not be constituted to meet and deliberate upon the candidates for consumer fora, the Court noted. "A new nomination is in the process of being made, whereupon, after the position as to qualifications is settled, the appointments or recommendations for appointments may be made", the order further stated. .In view of these factors, the Court adjourned a public interest litigation (PIL) petition raising concern over vacancies in district consumer forums. .The matter will be heard next on December 3, 2021..Earlier this month, the Bombay High Court had struck down the following 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:Rule 3(2) - which prescribed a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of president and members of State Commission;Rule 4(2)(c) which required experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of president and members of District Commission; andRule 6(9) which provided for the Selection Committee to determine its procedure for making its recommendations keeping in view the requirement of the Commission..Consequentially, the Central government was directed to frame new Rules substituting the above three Rules within four weeks..Bombay High Court quashes provisions of Consumer Protection Rules 2020.[Read Order]