Illegal to Allow More Government Representation on the Forum Member Selection Committee Under the Consumer Protection Rule? SC examines
Last Updated on November 19, 2023 by News Desk
A petition for special leave was granted by the SC in opposition to the ruling of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay HC, which invalidated Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (Eligibility for Appointment, Selection Process, Term of Office, Resignation, and Removal of the President and State and District Commission Members) Rules, 2020.
The overturned Rule stipulated that the Selection Committee, which suggests the President’s appointment as well as the appointment of member judges to the State Consumer Commission and the District Consumer Fora, should consist of two members of the State bureaucracy and one member of the judiciary.
The HC believed that the Rule lessened the judiciary’s influence over the selection procedure. Additionally, the Maharashtra government’s appointments to the Consumer Fora were revoked by the HC.
The ruling, however, was put on hold for a four-week period starting on October 20.
SC sent a notice on November 10 on the Special Leave Petition and the State also filed an SLP in opposition to the High Court ruling, the Court was informed.
The bench noted that “the issues which have been raised by the petitioner would require further deliberation” and adjourned the case until November 24. Additionally, the bench continued the High Court’s stay until the following posting date.
The selection procedure for Presidents and members of the District and State Commissions was ruled invalid by the High Court due to its noncompliance with the directives issued by the Supreme Court.
Written By- Shianjany Pradhan(@SHIANJANYPRADHAN)
