Consumer commission appointments must use objective selection standards; High Court struck down arbitrary procedure and experience rules.

The Bombay High Court examined the 2020 Consumer Protection Rules governing appointments to State and District Commissions and held that selection for these adjudicatory posts must follow objective, uniform and transparent standards. It found Rule 6(9) invalid because it gave each Selection Committee uncanalised discretion to ermine its own procedure, contrary to fairness and Article 14. It also struck down the prescribed 20-year and 15-year experience thresholds in Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) as unreasonable and inconsistent with the statutory scheme and earlier binding norms. As a consequence, the vacancy notice and ongoing selection process were quashed and cancelled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether 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 the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, which leaves the Selection Committee free to determine its own procedure, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) of the said Rules, 2020, prescribing 20 years' and 15 years' experience respectively for appointments to the State Commission and District Commission, are valid. (iii) Whether the impugned vacancy notice and the selection process initiated under the said Rules could survive.

Issue (i): Whether 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 the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, which leaves the Selection Committee free to determine its own procedure, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The appointment of Presidents and Members of the consumer commissions concerns adjudicatory posts performing judicial functions. The earlier directions governing consumer fora required uniform standards, objective norms and transparent selection to ensure that suitable persons with adequate knowledge, integrity and adjudicatory experience are appointed. Rule 6(9) conferred a wide and uncanalised discretion on each State Selection Committee without prescribing a uniform procedure, including any objective test to assess suitability. That discretion was held inconsistent with the binding directions earlier issued by the Supreme Court and with the constitutional requirement of fairness and equality in appointments to adjudicatory bodies.

Conclusion: Rule 6(9) is invalid and is quashed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) of the said Rules, 2020, prescribing 20 years' and 15 years' experience respectively for appointments to the State Commission and District Commission, are valid.

Analysis: The Court compared the statutory scheme under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and found no material change in the judicial character of the State and District Commissions. The Supreme Court had already indicated that members of such fora should possess adequate experience, with emphasis on ability, integrity and standing rather than an excessive threshold that would dilute access to qualified candidates, including advocates with relevant experience. The impugned experience requirements were treated as an attempt to circumvent the earlier binding norms and as a departure from the standard expected of persons appointed to perform adjudicatory work.

Conclusion: Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) are invalid and are quashed as unreasonable and violative of Article 14.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned vacancy notice and the selection process initiated under the said Rules could survive.

Analysis: Once the foundational eligibility and procedure rules were held unconstitutional, the vacancy notice issued in pursuance of those rules could not stand. The ongoing selection process was therefore rendered unsustainable and required cancellation, with fresh selection to be undertaken only under amended rules.

Conclusion: The vacancy notice and the selection process were quashed and cancelled.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned appointment rules succeeded in substance, the relevant rules were struck down, and consequential relief was granted by setting aside the vacancy notice and cancelling the ongoing selection process, while leaving the validity of one existing appointment untouched.

Ratio Decidendi: Rules governing appointments to adjudicatory tribunals or consumer commissions must prescribe objective, uniform and non-arbitrary selection standards that preserve independence and suitability; a delegation conferring uncanalised discretion in such appointments offends Article 14 and is liable to be struck down.

---