https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308554 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision declaring Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c), and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized the need for transparency, objective criteria, and merit-based appointments, directing amendments to include written examinations and reducing the experience requirements for members of State and District Commissions to align with judicial appointment standards. The appeals were disposed of with specific directions for amending the rules and ensuring compliance with the Court's guidelines. en-us Fri, 03 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jul 2023 20:51:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308554 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision declaring Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c), and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized the need for transparency, objective criteria, and merit-based appointments, directing amendments to include written examinations and reducing the experience requirements for members of State and District Commissions to align with judicial appointment standards. The appeals were disposed of with specific directions for amending the rules and ensuring compliance with the Court's guidelines. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308554