2025 INSC 752 Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 92

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9982 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25612 of 2023)

GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO ..…APPELLANT(S)

SELUKAR AND ORS.

VERSUS

MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9987 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26881 of 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9983-9985 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26172-26174 of 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9988 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26582 of 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9989 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26581 of 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9990 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27352 of 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9965-9967 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 639-641 of 2024)

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 92

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10029 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5866 of 2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9964 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8081 of 2024)

AND

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1313 OF 2024

(In Civil Appeal No. 831/2023)

WITH

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1315 OF 2024

(In Civil Appeal No. 833/2023)

WITH

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1314 OF 2024

(In Civil Appeal No. 832/2023)

J U D G M E N T

M. M. Sundresh, J.

1. Man is what he consumes. It is generally stated that one becomes a

consumer from the time of his birth but, in reality, the journey begins

much earlier. It extends from before the cradle to beyond the grave. A

mother and her child are inseparable in the womb. Medical treatment

received and commodities consumed by the mother, such as food,

water, medicine, etc., enure to her child. Consumption is shared

between the two, making them joint consumers. Similarly, even after

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 92

one dies, consumption continues in multifarious ways. From donation

of organs to the needy, to families conducting funeral rites and rituals

annually, consumption is a reality that cannot be ignored, especially in

an interconnected and interdependent world.

2. ‘Consumerism’ is therefore, one of the most integral aspects of human

life. How then does one define it? It is indeed a rather difficult task to

comprehensively do so, as every act or omission of an individual might

attract the definition, given the impact it may have on others. Perhaps,

its essence is best expressed in the words of Mahatma Gandhi, the

Father of the Nation.

“A customer is the most important visitor on our premises. He is not

dependent on us. We are dependent on him. He is not an interruption

on our work. He is the purpose of it. He is not an outsider on our

business. He is a part of it. We are not doing him a favour by serving

him. He is doing us a favour by giving us an opportunity to do so.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. He elevated a consumer above every other entity, transforming the

concept of consumerism through the principles of truth and dharma. He

galvanised people from all walks of life to participate in the freedom

struggle, by incorporating the spirit of consumerism in the pivotal

Indian Independence Movement, through methods such as non-

cooperation and civil disobedience. One classic instance where politics,

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 92

economics and social order were consciously integrated, was the Dandi

March of 1930, whereby civil disobedience was extended through the

Salt Satyagraha opposing the taxation of salt. It can be rightfully said

that democracy was won, not only by the strength of our words and the

sweat of our brow, but also over the price of salt. Hence, at its core, the

Indian Independence Movement can be seen as a citizen-consumer

movement.

4. The concept of consumerism has evolved in India since ancient times. A

solemn duty was ordained on the King, to hold the trader accountable

to a standard of fairness in every transaction with a consumer. Any

violation by traders was dealt with by the Ruler, not only by retributive,

but also by reformative action. This was because the knowledge and

character of his citizens depended upon their consumption, and would

have been substantially impacted, if consumption was either inadequate

or the quality poor. The relevance of the same has become even more

pronounced today.

5. Consumer movements have deeply impacted the revolutionary

struggles for a liberal democracy across the globe. One can view the

American Revolution through the lens of the Boston Tea Party incident,

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 92

wherein the monopoly of the British traders was sought to be checked

by the American citizens, posing as Red Indians and throwing away

imported tea into the water. Similarly, the French Revolution can be

viewed from the lens of the Bread Riots, particularly the Flour War of

1775 and the Women’s March on Versailles in 1789. Since bread was a

crucial component of the French diet, especially for the working class

who spent a large portion of their income on it, the shortage of grain to

make bread and the consequent rise in the price of bread, ignited popular

anger in the towns of the Paris Basin, leading to the Bread Riots, and

thereafter the French Revolution. Both the aforementioned instances of

the American and the French Revolutions, like the Dandi March, were

actions on political, economic and social grounds.

ESSENCE OF CONSUMERISM IN THE CONSTITUTION

6. Understanding the concept of consumerism entails rising above any

distinction between the public and the private. It is inherently an all-

encompassing concept. Therefore, subjects such as politics, economics,

sociology, and the environment, become important facets of

consumerism. Only by understanding consumerism through the lens of

these different facets, can one appreciate the true impact of it on the

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 92

daily life - of an individual, a family, a community, a country and the

world at large. As E P Mcguire put it succinctly,

“Consumerism is both an idea and a contagious spirit and national

boundaries have never proved much of an obstacle to either of these.

Thus, consumerism has become an international social force.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. Consumerism, thus, constitutes the very spirit of the Constitution of

India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”). It does not

end with recognizing and protecting the rights of a consumer vis-à-vis

a trader or a service provider, as the case may be, but travels far beyond.

The rights of a consumer are not merely constitutional or statutory

guarantees, but are in fact, natural, and therefore, inalienable. The fact

that the society, economy, polity and the environment, are inseparable

from each other, is something that was envisioned even by the framers

of the Constitution. Though not explicitly in the context of

consumerism, the said vision is reflected in the much-celebrated

statement of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his closing speech before the

Constituent Assembly of India, on 25.11.1949.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 92

Constituent Assembly of India, Friday, the 25th November, 1949

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:

“The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political

democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy

as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of

it social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way

of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles

of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be

treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in

the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose

of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality

cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be

divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the

supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would

kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could

not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to

enforce them. We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is

complete absence of two things in Indian society. One of these is equality.

On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of

graded inequality which means elevation for some and degradation for

others. On the economic plane, we have a society in which there are some

who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On

the 26th January, 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions.

In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will

have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one

man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life,

we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to

deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to

live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny

equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for

long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We

must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else

those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political

democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.”

(emphasis supplied)

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 92

8. Our understanding of consumerism must also be shaped by the

Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined under Part IV of the

Constitution.

Article 38 of the Constitution

“38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the

people.— (1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people

by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in

which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the

institutions of the national life.

(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in

income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and

opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups

of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.”

(emphasis supplied)

Article 39 of the Constitution

“39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.—The State

shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing—

xxx xxx xxx

(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the

community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the

concentration of wealth and means of production to the common

detriment;

xxx xxx xxx

(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and

the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not

forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their

age or strength;

xxx xxx xxx

(emphasis supplied)

Article 47 of the Constitution

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 92

“47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of

living and to improve public health.—The State shall regard the raising

of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the

improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in

particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the

consumption, except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of

drugs which are injurious to health.”

(emphasis supplied)

Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde, 1995

Supp (2) SCC 549

“14. Providing adequate means of livelihood for all the citizens and

distribution of the material resources of the community for common

welfare, enable the poor, the Dalits and Tribes, to fulfil the basic needs to

bring about a fundamental change in the structure of the Indian society

which was divided by erecting impregnable walls of separation between the

people on grounds of caste, sub-caste, creed, religion, race, language and

sex. Equality of opportunity and status thereby would become the bedrocks

for social integration. Economic empowerment thereby is the foundation

to make equality of status, dignity of person and equal opportunity a

truism. The core of the commitment of the Constitution to the social

revolution through rule of law lies in effectuation of the fundamental

rights and directive principles as supplementary and complementary

to each other. The Preamble, fundamental rights and directive

principles — the trinity — are the conscience of the Constitution.

Political democracy has to be stable. Socio-economic democracy must

take strong roots and should become a way of life. The State, therefore,

is enjoined to provide adequate means of livelihood to the poor, weaker

sections of the society, the Dalits and Tribes and to distribute material

resources of the community to them for common welfare etc.”

(emphasis supplied)

9. In India, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as

“the 1986 Act”) and thereafter, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

(hereinafter referred to as “the 2019 Act”) have been brought forth to

give effect to the discovery and progressive realization of our

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 92

constitutional rights, culture and ethos. It was felt that a dedicated

consumer legislation was needed for citizens, to attain exposure to

participative democracy, day-to-day economics, ongoing politics and

environmental protection, endeavouring towards socio-economic,

political and environmental justice. Perhaps, that might be the reason as

to why the 1986 Act, being the first consumer protection legislation in

India, does not even draw its origins from any specific provision of the

Constitution, as all the salient features of the Constitution are put in a

basket and offered to the citizen, for whose benefit it has been enacted.

10. It is needless to state that, while dealing with consumer disputes, the

Consumer fora created under the 1986 Act and, thereafter, retained

under the 2019 Act, must be mindful of the aforesaid constitutional

basis, as a mere dictionary meaning can never do complete justice to

the word ‘consumer’.

Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia, (1998) 4 SCC 39

“8. Before we examine the aforesaid questions it would be appropriate to

notice the scenario in which Parliament enacted the Consumer Protection

Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The United Nations had passed a

resolution in April 1985 indicating certain guidelines under which the

Government could make law for better protection of the interest of the

consumers. Such laws were necessary more in the developing countries

to protect the consumers from hazards to their health and safety and

make them available speedier and cheaper redress. Consumerism has

been a movement in which the trader and the consumer find each other

as adversaries. Till last two decades in many developed and developing

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 92

countries powerful consumer organisations have come into existence

and such organisations have been instrumental in dealing with the

consumer protection laws and in expansion of the horizon of such laws.

In our country the legislation is of recent origin and its efficacy has not

been critically evaluated which has to be done on the basis of

experience. Undoubtedly the Act creates a framework for speedy

disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove

the existing evils of the ordinary court system. The Act gives a

comprehensive definition of consumer who is the principal beneficiary

of the legislation but at the same time in view of the comprehensive

definition of the term “consumer” even a member of the family cannot

be denied the status of consumer under the Act and in an action by any

such member of the family for any deficiency of service, it will not be

open for a trader to take a stand that there is no privity of contract.

The Consumer Protection Act confers jurisdiction on the Commission

in respect of matters where either there is defect in goods or there is

deficiency in service or there has been an unfair and restrictive trade

practice or in the matter of charging of excessive price. The Act being

a beneficial legislation intended to confer some speedier remedy on a

consumer from being exploited by unscrupulous traders, the

provisions thereof should receive a liberal construction.”

(emphasis supplied)

State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society,

(2003) 2 SCC 412

“38. The scope and object of the said legislation came up for consideration

before this Court in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India

[(1997) 10 SCC 729] . It was held : (SCC p. 730, para 2)

“2. The object of the legislation, as the preamble of the Act

proclaims, is ‘for better protection of the interests of consumers’.

During the last few years preceding the enactment there was in this

country a marked awareness among the consumers of goods that

they were not getting their money's worth and were being exploited

by both traders and manufacturers of consumer goods. The need

for consumer redressal fora was, therefore, increasingly felt.

Understandably, therefore, legislation was introduced and enacted

with considerable enthusiasm and fanfare as a path-breaking

benevolent legislation intended to protect the consumer from

exploitation by unscrupulous manufacturers and traders of

consumer goods. A three-tier fora comprising the District Forum, the

State Commission and the National Commission came to be envisaged

under the Act for redressal of grievances of consumers.”

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 92

xxx xxx xxx

42. We may in this connection also notice that in Laxmi Engg. Works v.

P.S.G. Industrial Institute [(1995) 3 SCC 583] this Court held : (SCC p.

591, para 10)

“10. A review of the provisions of the Act discloses that the quasi-

judicial bodies/authorities/agencies created by the Act known as District

Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission are not

courts though invested with some of the powers of a civil court. They

are quasi-judicial tribunals brought into existence to render

inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. It is equally clear

that these Forums/Commissions were not supposed to supplant but

supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an

additional forum providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of

disputes arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and

services. The forum so created is uninhibited by the requirement of

court fee or the formal procedures of a court. Any consumer can go

and file a complaint. Complaint need not necessarily be filed by the

complainant himself; any recognized consumers' association can

espouse his cause. Where a large number of consumers have a

similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint on behalf of all.

Even the Central Government and State Governments can act on

his/their behalf. The idea was to help the consumers get justice and

fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and

availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and

manufacturing bodies. Indeed, the entire Act revolves round the

consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The Act provides

for ‘business-to-consumer’ disputes and not for ‘business-to-

business’ disputes. This scheme of the Act, in our opinion, is

relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that fall for

consideration in this appeal.”

xxx xxx xxx

44. In Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [(1994) 1 SCC 243]

this Court held : (SCC p. 251, para 2)

“The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society

by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market

economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer

which he faces against powerful business, described as, ‘a network

of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘producers have secured power’ to

‘rob the rest’ and the might of public bodies which are degenerating

into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one

desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 92

extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless,

bewildered and shocked.”

It has further been held : (SCC pp. 254 & 252, para 3)

The Act thus aims to protect the economic interest of a consumer as

understood in commercial sense as a purchaser of goods and in the

larger sense of user of services. … It is a milestone in history of

socio-economic legislation and is directed towards achieving public

benefit.”

(emphasis supplied)

Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Assn. of India, (2011) 14 SCC

337

“18. The 1986 Act was enacted for the better protection of the interests of

consumers by making provision for the establishment of consumer councils

and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes. The object

and purpose of enacting the 1986 Act is to provide for simple,

inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers who have grievance

against defective goods and deficient services. This benevolent piece of

legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from

exploitation.”

(emphasis supplied)

CONSUMERISM VIS -À-VIS PUBLIC INTEREST

11. Though a consumer seeking to redress his grievance may do so for

himself, the benefit of the same often enures to the public, which

transacts with various entities, including State instrumentalities. In this

way, the exercise of the power vested in a single consumer, to hold any

entity accountable, transforms him into a flag bearer of public justice.

This was seen way back in the year 1932, when Mrs. Donoghue, who

fell sick after drinking ginger beer containing a decomposed snail,

approached the House of Lords. The House of Lords, in its landmark

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 92

decision in M’Alister (Or Donoghue) (Pauper) v. Stevenson, [1932]

A.C. 562, popularly referred to as the ‘snail in the bottle case’, held the

manufacturer liable for negligence, and ordered it to pay damages to

Mrs. Donoghue, establishing the principle of ‘duty of care’, which can

be stated to have paved the way for modern consumer protection

jurisprudence.

12. The Consumer fora in India, have time and again rendered decisions

beneficial to the public at large. In Indian Medical Association v. V.P.

Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651, this Court brought the medical profession

within the ambit of the 1986 Act. The National Commission in Ambrish

Kumar Shukla and Others v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Seth

Farms, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1117 : (2017) 1 CPJ 1 (NC) set a

precedent for homebuyers across the country to sue developers for delay

in handing over possession of flats. In Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. v.

Ajay Kumar Agarwal, (2022) 6 SCC 496, this Court held that telecom

services would be amenable to the relevant consumer protection

legislation. At the first glance, these may seem like private reliefs.

However, these reliefs have prospectively and progressively shaped the

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 92

relationship between consumers and producers/manufacturers, with

greater accountability on the latter.

13. Therefore, consumer litigation is a form of public interest litigation,

which builds an active citizenry, enhancing participatory democracy.

Participatory democracy is one of the basic features of the Constitution.

The principle of participation in the governance of the country, is not

only a constitutional right, but also a human right. It is thus imperative

that consumer litigation should be allowed to grow multi-fold, for a

democracy to flourish.

CONSUMERISM VIS -À-VIS SOCIAL JUSTICE

14. Social justice exists when everyone in the society enjoys equal rights,

opportunities, and access to resources, goods and services, regardless

of where they come from. It entails the creation of a society where

issues including but not limited to discrimination, and unequal access

to food, water, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare and the like, are

addressed proactively. A democratic society is premised on the

attainment of social justice. Only when the standard of living is

equitable, and equality of opportunities are the order of the day, can a

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 92

society be said to have truly achieved social justice and hence,

democracy.

15. To bring about this social revolution, ‘consumerism’ must be accepted

as a social force, as it substantially informs the trajectory of one’s life.

The manner in which a growing child’s basic needs of nutrition and

education are fulfilled, plays a huge role in the abilities he acquires and

the opportunities he receives and may ultimately avail as an adult. A

child consuming sub-standard food, growing in abject poverty, will be

materially different from his counterpart, who may have exposure to the

best of what the world has to offer. Similarly, a child acquiring

knowledge through sound and stable education, equipped with

necessary learning tools, ranging from something as basic as a pen and

paper, to something as advanced as smart classrooms, might be able to

avail more opportunities than one growing up without the same. Plainly

speaking, if there is no equality of consumption, there can be no equality

of life.

16. If commodities are enjoyed solely by a particular section of the society,

becoming a mirage to the unfortunate majority, then the Fundamental

Right conferred under Article 14 of the Constitution steps in. If a

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 92

classification has been wrongly drawn, leading to the perpetration of

inequality, and a consumer is deprived of what he is otherwise entitled

to, on extraneous considerations, the resultant malice must be

accordingly dealt with. Especially in an emerging and developing

democracy like ours, where human resources are abundant, and the

aspirational youth constitute the majority of the population, refusing

them their rightful entitlement would be an affront to the Fundamental

Rights enshrined in the Constitution.

17. Societal structure has far evolved from the rudimentary hunter-gatherer

society, to the modern one. Just as the needs and wants of citizens have

multiplied and metamorphosed, so have the ways in which inequalities

manifest, especially on the anvil of caste, community, religion,

language and culture. Therefore, on this count also, empowering

consumerism would be the most effective way to remove social

inequalities.

18. Though bringing about equality amongst all citizens must be the

constant endeavour of stakeholders such as the State and independent

goods/service providers, absolute equality may not be possible at all

times. The State, as the custodian of national resources, is expected to

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 92

ensure equitable consumption of material goods by the public at large,

while independent goods/service providers are expected to strive

towards competitive innovation and continuous improvement in

product quality.

19. And yet, what remains is the role of a citizen. Where does his role lie?

We feel that the attainment of social justice may be most effective when

driven by the smallest unit of the society - a citizen, who is exposed to

inequalities through his day-to-day consumption.

20. To put it succinctly, it is not only the duty of the State or a goods/service

provider, but also of every individual, to make sure that the concept of

consumerism flourishes in every possible way, in order to give effect to

the Fundamental Rights ensured to the citizens, in adherence with the

constitutional mandate. The Directive Principles of State Policy and the

Fundamental Duties enshrined under Part IV and Part IVA of the

Constitution respectively, reflect the very same understanding.

CONSUMERISM VIS -À-VIS POLITICS

21. Man is by nature a political animal. This thought, espoused by the Greek

philosopher and polymath Aristotle in the 4th century BCE, has attained

tremendous significance in the present day and age. Across the globe,

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 92

the seeds of political consumerism sprouted during the struggles for a

liberal democracy, becoming their very backbone, particularly in light

of the fact that consumption has always been an intrinsic part of

people’s lives. These saplings have today grown into undercurrents in

everyday transactions.

22. The choice to consume a particular good or service, or not, reflects our

political considerations. It might also be a symbol of class or power. In

the words of the acclaimed Polish Nobel Laureate, Olga Nawoja

Tokarczuk, “In today's world everything is political. We are a statement

- our clothes, haircut, the way we act”.

23. A nation's political stability, and its international relations, are

influenced by its fiscal, monetary and sector-specific policies on

education, health and the environment, amongst others. These in turn

affect and are affected by consumerism. From an international

perspective, trade agreements, import and export policies, military

alliances, and international cooperation hinge on the global

understanding of consumerism.

24. The aforesaid policies of the government in power, influence citizens

when they set out to exercise their vote during upcoming elections, as

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 92

every voter is a consumer. Political manifestos are often built on the

consumption demands of citizens. Free ration, free electricity, and free

bus tickets are only some of the promises that have, in the recent past,

sparked strong public discourse. These promises, in some sense,

determine who forms the government, which thereafter takes policy

decisions influenced by consumption patterns. These policy decisions,

in turn, influence who forms the next government. Consumerism thus,

runs through the cycle of cause-and-effect vis-à-vis politics. Therefore,

the importance of a voter to politics would be felt only when there is

social and economic equality. Consumerism is the appropriate tool in

achieving this valued objective for a mature democracy.

25. Thus, there is a pressing need to understand consumerism from the lens

of its political implications. This is particularly so, in light of the

growing complexities in our relationship with the polity and the

dynamic interplay of rights, duties, and the State's role in governance.

CONSUMERISM VIS -À-VIS ECONOMICS

26. Consumers are the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. It is through their

spending decisions, that producers are informed about the kinds and

quantities of goods and services to provide. When there is higher

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 21 of 92

consumer demand, businesses are incentivised to produce more, leading

to economic growth and development. Increased consumer spending

also leads to a higher demand for labour, as businesses need more

employees to produce and sell goods and services. Key economic

indicators like the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Consumer

Confidence Index (CCI) are closely observed by businesses, investors,

and policymakers, to gauge the health of the economy. Thus, the success

of all economic activity depends upon the consumer.

27. The world is transforming into a global village, with India growing at a

rapid pace to make a permanent place for itself. We may note that

according to ‘India’s Outlook 2025-2026 Story’, published by the

Union Bank of Switzerland, India is set to become the 3

rd

largest

consumer market in the world by 2026, only behind the United States

of America and the People's Republic of China. Demographic studies

also show that the population size in India has surpassed all other

nations, a factor that is certainly contributing to the expansion of the

consumer base, thereby leading to an increase in consumption

expenditure. This is corroborated by the statistics released by the

National Statistics Office (NSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 22 of 92

Implementation (MoSPI) vide its Press Note in February 2025, which

indicates that Private Final Consumption Expenditure (PFCE) at current

prices stood at ₹181.30 lakh crore for the year 2023-24, as against

₹165.28 lakh crore in 2022-23, and that in relation to the Gross

Domestic Product (GDP), the PFCE to GDP ratio at current prices

during 2022-23 and 2023-24 were 61.5% and 60.2% respectively.

28. With rising household income, coupled with development in all spheres,

the demand and supply of goods and services, as well as expenditure,

are undergoing drastic changes. The aspirational youth, who form a

majority of the population and represent the future of our country, crave

qualitative commodities at all times. In all, the constant evolution and

expansion of the consumer basket will remain a key indicator of the

nation’s economic progress and potential to transform as an economy.

CONSUMERISM VIS -À-VIS ENVIRONMENT

29. At the first blush, the concepts of consumerism and the environment

might look distinct and different. However, they are more than

interconnected and are, in fact, inseparable.

30. Let us take the example of the basic commodity of water. An inadequate

or impure supply of water would have drastic effects. From an

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 92

environmental perspective, it would lead to widespread digging of

borewells, causing groundwater depletion and transforming land into a

desert. Another example is the demand and supply of a Liquified

Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinder. If an LPG cylinder is not available in a

common household, the option that remains is the usage of wood and

dry leaves. This would affect the environment, as there would be more

pressure on the forests. The use of the aforementioned alternatives

would also cause pollution. Therefore, there is a distinct spiralling effect

in a simple case of unavailability of an LPG cylinder.

31. These situations may have a drastic impact on public health, leading to

increased demand for medicine and medical supplies. Such increased

demand, especially for cheaper options, may then affect the

environment. We only give this as an example to drive home the point

that the development of the society must be seen holistically, and not in

piecemeal.

32. Today, consumerism has taken a new shape in the form of Green

Consumerism. Growing concerns about climate change and resource

depletion have spurred consumers, especially in the younger

generations, to seek sustainable options. Green consumers are

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 24 of 92

motivated by the environmental impact of their consumption choices.

Some examples of such choices would be the consumption of organic

food, sustainable clothing, energy efficient appliances, products made

of recycled material, and the usage of sustainable transportation. The

demand for such products and services drives businesses to adopt more

sustainable practices, and regulatory bodies to implement policies that

promote green consumption and encourage businesses to do so. The

relevance of green consumerism is multi-fold. It can lead to reduced

environmental pollution with less waste generation, lower levels of

carbon emissions, and improved air, water, and soil quality and

therefore contribute to better public health. Sustainable choices can help

conserve natural resources and reduce reliance on finite resources. On

the ancillary front, it can stimulate innovation and create new jobs in

the renewable energy sector and sustainable industries.

33. Thus, green consumerism would lead the country closer towards

achieving its milestones under the United Nations Sustainable

Development Goals, with better implementation of the polluter pays

principle, the precautionary principle, the intergenerational equity

principle and the theory of trusteeship. In fact, the urgent need to make

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 25 of 92

sustainable and healthy lifestyle choices available, accessible, and

affordable for all consumers – while ensuring that these transitions

uphold people’s basic rights and needs, has been recognised in the

theme for this year’s World Consumer Rights Day, ‘A Just Transition to

Sustainable Lifestyles.’

NEED FOR A CHANGE

34. The importance of consumerism has been sufficiently dealt with by us.

The primary question for consideration now is as to whether the

grievance redressal mechanism provided to a consumer, is adequate or

not. As consumer justice includes social, economic, political, and

environmental justice, the time has now come to test the apparatus

available to deal with pressing consumer issues.

35. While every Court of Law, of which a consumer is also part, is expected

to uphold constitutional principles, a Consumer forum has its primary

objective in ensuring the same. This is more so as consumerism is ever-

evolving and is likely to take different dimensions in the coming years.

It is not going to disappear or pale into insignificance in the foreseeable

future. Unless policy-makers are conscious about the emergent need to

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 26 of 92

effect necessary changes, including but not limited to structural

changes, the existing system might crumble.

36. Since the essence of consumerism is embedded within the Constitution,

there is absolutely no reason to fill up the Consumer fora with tenure-

based offices for the Staff, Members and Presidents. While we leave it

to the wisdom of the Union of India to revamp the existing structure

with holistic changes, we would only implore upon it, to appreciate the

pressing need for a permanent structure. Consumer fora can be given

permanency through permanent staff and officers, including Presidents

and Members at different levels.

37. The security of tenure attached to an office administering justice,

enhances its efficiency and functionality. Any person appointed to an

office with a fixed tenure would not be as motivated as one appointed

on a permanent basis. Impermanence would affect the quality of

decisions and thus, cause injury to consumers. A consumer is ideally

expected to get a qualitative and timely decision from the concerned

Consumer forum. Such a decision is the best advertisement for the

concept of consumerism. We feel that the time has come to effect a

change in mindset qua revamping the tenure of office in Consumer fora.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 27 of 92

This will go a long way in developing and enhancing the concept of

consumerism. We hope and trust that the Union of India would take a

deeper look into this issue and act appropriately.

38. We may also point out that though provisions for taking action against

those who have erred is part of the current legal framework, there is no

clear mechanism available, similar to the one provided for under Article

227 of the Constitution.

39. At this juncture, we deem it fit to suggest that the Union of India may

consider increasing the strength of Consumer fora at all levels.

ON MERITS

40. Based on the aforesaid deliberation on the concept of consumerism, we

shall strive to address the issues at hand. For doing so, certain factual

narrations would be required.

41. Though we are concerned with three different sets of facts in the present

Civil Appeals, two sets pertaining to the State of Maharashtra and one

pertaining to the State of Telangana, we are dealing with all of them

together, as the issues involved are overlapping.

42. The lacunae prevalent in the implementation of the 1986 Act, was

substantially addressed for the first time by this Court in State of Uttar

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 92

Pradesh and Others v. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar

Association (2017) 1 SCC 444 (hereinafter referred to as “UPCPBA”),

wherein directions had been issued to the Union of India, to frame

Model Rules under the aforementioned statute.

State of U.P. v. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Assn., (2017) 1 SCC

444

“28. Hence in terms of the above discussion we issue the following

directions:

28.1. The Union Government shall for the purpose of ensuring uniformity

in the exercise of the rule-making power under Section 10(3) and Section

16(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 frame model rules for adoption

by the State Governments. The model rules shall be framed within four

months and shall be submitted to this Court for its approval;

28.2. The Union Government shall also frame within four months model

rules prescribing objective norms for implementing the provisions of

Section 10(1)(b), Section 16(1)(b) and Section 20(1)(b) in regard to the

appointment of members respectively of the District Fora, State

Commissions and National Commission;

28.3. The Union Government shall while framing the model rules have due

regard to the formulation of objective norms for the assessment of the

ability, knowledge and experience required to be possessed by the members

of the respective fora in the domain areas referred to in the statutory

provisions mentioned above. The model rules shall provide for the payment

of salary, allowances and for the conditions of service of the members of

the consumer fora commensurate with the nature of adjudicatory duties and

the need to attract suitable talent to the adjudicating bodies. These rules

shall be finalised upon due consultation with the President of the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the period stipulated

above;

28.4. Upon the approval of the model rules by this Court, the State

Governments shall proceed to adopt the model rules by framing appropriate

rules in the exercise of the rule-making powers under Section 30 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986;

28.5. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is requested

to formulate regulations under Section 30-A with the previous approval of

the Central Government within a period of three months from today in order

to effectuate the power of administrative control vested in the National

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 29 of 92

Commission over the State Commissions under Section 24-B(1)(iii) and in

respect of the administrative control of the State Commissions over the

District Fora in terms of Section 24-B(2) as explained in this judgment to

effectively implement the objects and purposes of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.”

43. Thus, this Court was pleased to hold that it would only be just and fair

to ensure uniformity by way of a common set of rules applicable to the

Consumer fora in all the States. Based upon the Model Rules framed by

the Union Government in compliance with the aforestated decision, the

Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowances, and

Conditions of Service of President and Members of State Commission

and District Forum) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2019

Rules”) were notified by the State of Maharashtra, invoking its power

to make rules under Section 10(3), Section 13(1)(c), Section 14(3),

Section 16(2) and Section 30(2) of the 1986 Act.

44. Thereafter, the 1986 Act was substituted by the 2019 Act, with effect

from 09.08.2019. While dealing with the Finance Act, 2017, this Court,

in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited (2020) 6 SCC 1

(hereinafter referred to as “Rojer Mathew”), was pleased to hold that

the composition of the concerned Selection Committee must have

maximum participation of the judiciary and that it would only be

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 30 of 92

appropriate to have a minimum tenure of 5 years for the Presiding

Officers and Members of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal.

45. Thereafter, the Union of India came out with a fresh set of Rules, being

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 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2020

Rules”) in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 101(2)(n)

and 101(2)(w) read with Sections 29 and 43 of the 2019 Act.

Section 29 of the 2019 Act

“29. Qualifications, etc., of President and members of District

Commission.—The Central Government may, by notification, make rules

to provide for the qualifications, method of recruitment, procedure for

appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and

members of the District Commission.”

Section 43 of the 2019 Act

“43. Qualifications, etc., of President and members of State

Commission.—The Central Government may, by notification, make rules

to provide for the qualification for appointment, method of recruitment,

procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the

President and members of the State Commission.”

Section 101 of the 2019 Act

“101. Power of Central Government to make rules.—(1) The Central

Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out any of the

provisions contained in this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules

may provide for, —

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 31 of 92

xxx xxx xxx

(n) the qualifications for appointment, method of recruitment,

procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of

President and members of the District Commission under Section 29;

xxx xxx xxx

(w) the qualifications for appointment, method of recruitment,

procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of

the President and members of the State Commission under Section

43;”

(emphasis supplied)

46. We may point out that even under the 2020 Rules, the tenure of the

Presidents and Members of the State Commission and District

Commission, was fixed as 4 years. This Court, in Madras Bar

Association v. Union of India and Another (2021) 7 SCC 369

(hereinafter referred to as “MBA – III”) and Madras Bar Association

v. Union of India and Another (2022) 12 SCC 455 (hereinafter

referred to as “MBA – IV”) vide decisions dated 27.11.2020 and

14.07.2021 respectively, reiterated the views expressed in Rojer

Mathew (supra) to the effect that the tenure of office under the

legislations impugned therein, must be a minimum of 5 years.

47. In the first round of litigation, a writ petition and a public interest

litigation had been filed before the High Court of Bombay, laying a

challenge to Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the 2020 Rules.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 32 of 92

Rule 3 of the 2020 Rules

“3. Qualifications for appointment of President and members of the

State Commission. — (1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment

as President, unless he is, or has been, a Judge of the High Court;

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member unless he

is of not less than forty years of age and possesses-—

(a) an experience of at least ten years as presiding officer of a

district court or of any tribunal at equivalent level or combined

service as such in the district court and tribunal:

Provided that not more than fifty percent of such members shall be

appointed; or

(b) a bachelor's degree from a recognised university and is a

person of ability, integrity and standing, and has special

knowledge and professional experience of not less than twenty

years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration,

economics, commerce, industry, finance, management,

engineering, technology, public health or medicine:

(3) At least one member or the President of the State Commission shall be

a woman.”

(emphasis supplied)

Rule 4 of the 2020 Rules

“4. Qualifications for appointment of President and member of District

Commission. — (1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as

President, unless he is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as member unless

he—(a) is of not less than thirty-five years of age;

(b) possesses a bachelor's degree from a recognised University; and

(c) is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and having special

knowledge and professional experience of not less than fifteen

years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration,

economics, commerce, industry, finance, management,

engineering, technology, public health or medicine.

(3) At least one member or the President of the District Commission shall

be a woman.”

(emphasis supplied)

Rule 6 of the 2020 Rules

“6. Procedure of appointment. —

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 33 of 92

xxx xxx xxx

(9) The Selection Committee shall determine its procedure for making

its recommendation keeping in view the requirements of the State

Commission or the District Commission and after taking into account

the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory

experience.”

(emphasis supplied)

48. Vide judgment and order dated 14.09.2021, the Division Bench of the

High Court of Bombay, declared the aforesaid Rules as

unconstitutional, placing reliance on UPCPBA (supra) and MBA - III

(supra). While Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c) of the 2020 Rules

unreasonably fixed the eligibility criteria as experience of 20 years and

15 years for the Non-Judicial members of the State Commission and

members of the District Commission respectively, Rule 6(9) of the 2020

Rules gave uncanalised power to the Selection Committee, to adopt its

own procedure.

49. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Bombay, was challenged before this Court in The Secretary Ministry

of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors., 2023

SCC OnLine SC 231 (hereinafter referred to as “Limaye – I”). Vide

judgment dated 03.03.2023, it was held that the requirement of 20 years

and 15 years of experience for eligibility as Non-Judicial members of

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 34 of 92

the State Commission and the members of the District Commission

respectively, was arbitrary and that 10 years of experience is sufficient.

It was also held that Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules, which conferred

unfettered and unbridled powers on the Selection Committee, without

the mandate of conducting a written examination followed by a viva

voce, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. This was because the 1986

Act and the 2019 Act are pari materia as regards Consumer fora, and

the 2019 Rules framed under the 1986 Act, provided for the conduct of

written examinations qua appointment to the Consumer fora.

Incidentally, the power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution

was exercised, issuing directions to conduct a written examination

followed by viva voce for the posts of Presidents and Members of the

State and District Commissions. Suggestions had been given on the

manner in which the written examination, followed by viva voce, was

to be conducted.

The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar

Limaye & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 231

“44. Similarly providing 20 years' experience under Rule 3(2)(b) also

rightly held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It

is required to be noted that under Section 3(2)(b), a presiding officer of a

Court having experience of 10 years is eligible for becoming President of

the State Commission. Even under Section 3(1) a judge of the High Court,

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 35 of 92

present or former, shall be qualified for appointment of the President. As

per Article 233 of the Constitution, a lawyer needs to have only 7 years of

practice as an advocate in High Court. Under the circumstances to provide

20 years' experience under Rule 3(2)(b) is rightly held to be

unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution

of India. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High

Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the case of Madras Bar

Association (supra) - MBA III, this Court directed to consider 10 years'

experience, after detail reasoning.

45. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason

to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court declaring Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and 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 State Commission and District Commission)

Rules, 2020 as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. The Central Government and the concerned State

Governments have to amend Rules, 2020, more particularly, Rule 6(9) of

the Rules, 2020, providing that the Selection Committee shall follow the

procedure for appointment as per Model Rules, 2017 and to make the

appointment of President and Members of the State Commission and the

District Commission on the basis of the performance in written test

consisting of two papers of 100 marks each and 50 marks for viva voce and

the written test consisting of two papers may be as per the following

schemes:—

Paper Topics Nature of test Max. marks Duration

Paper-I (a) General

Knowledge and

current affairs

(b) Knowledge of

Constitution of

India

(c) Knowledge of

various Consumers

related Laws as

indicated in the

Schedule

Objective Type 100 2 hours

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 36 of 92

Paper-

II

(a) One Essay on

topics chosen from

issues on trade and

commerce

consumer related

issues or Public

Affairs.

(b) One case study

of a consumer case

for testing the

abilities of analysis

and cogent drafting

of orders.

Descriptive

type

100 3 hours

46. The Central Government and the concerned State Governments have

also to come with an amendment in the Rules, 2020 to provide 10 years'

experience to become eligible for appointment of President and Member of

the State Commission as well as the District Commission instead of 20

years and 15 years respectively, provided in Rule 3(2)(b) and Rule 4(2)(c)

which has been struck down to the extent providing 20 years and 15 years

of experience, respectively. Till the suitable amendments are made in

Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of

recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and

removal of President and Members of State Commission and District

Commission) Rules, 2020 as above, in exercise of powers under Article 142

of the Constitution of India and to do complete justice, we direct that in

future and hereinafter, a person having bachelor's degree from a recognized

University and who is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and having

special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in

consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration, economics, commerce,

industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or

medicine, shall be treated as qualified for appointment of President and

Members of the State Commission. Similarly, a person of a person of

ability, integrity and standing, and having special knowledge and

professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law,

public affairs, administration, economics, commerce, industry, finance,

management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine, shall be

treated as qualified for appointment of President and Members of the

District Commissions. We also direct under Article 142 of the Constitution

of India that for appointment of President and Members of the State

Commission and District Commission, the appointment shall be made on

the basis of performance in written test consisting of two papers as per the

following scheme: —

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 37 of 92

Paper Topics Nature of test

Max.

marks

Duration

Paper-I

(a) General

Knowledge and

current affairs

(b) Knowledge

of Constitution

of India

(c) Knowledge

of various

Consumers

related Laws as

indicated in the

Schedule

Objective

Type

100

2 hours

Paper-

II

(a) One Essay on

topics chosen

from issues on

trade and

commerce

consumer related

issues or Public

Affairs.

(b) One case

study of a

consumer case

for testing the

abilities of

analysis and

cogent drafting

of orders.

Descriptive

type

100

3 hours

47. The qualifying marks in each paper shall be 50 per cent and there

shall be viva voce of 50 marks. Therefore, marks to be allotted out of

250, which shall consist of a written test consisting two papers, each of

100 marks and the 50 marks on the basis of viva voce.”

(emphasis supplied)

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 38 of 92

50. After the judgment was pronounced by this Court on 03.03.2023, a

notice had been issued on 23.05.2023 by the State of Maharashtra,

inviting applications for the posts of Members of the State Commission

and Presidents and Members of the District Commission (hereinafter

referred to as “the advertisement”). Prior to the aforesaid

advertisement, a Selection Committee had been constituted by the State

of Maharashtra, in which a nominee of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

the High Court of Bombay, was made the Chairperson vide notification

dated 10.04.2023, which was reconstituted vide notification dated

13.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the notifications”).

51. Three writ petitions had been filed before the High Court of Bombay,

bearing Writ Petition Nos. 3680/2023, 2107/2023 and 2496/2023,

laying a challenge to Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the 2020 Rules, the

advertisement and the notifications. Incidentally, in two of the aforesaid

writ petitions, reappointment had also been sought for. We may hasten

to add that all the writ petitions had been filed by interested persons.

Broadly, the writ petitioners comprised practicing advocates seeking

appointment, and functioning Members and Presidents of the District

Commissions in the State of Maharashtra, who sought reappointment to

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 39 of 92

their respective posts. There were also intervenors, some of whom

supported the case of the writ petitioners, while the others supported the

stand taken by the State of Maharashtra.

Rule 6 of the 2020 Rules

“6. Procedure of appointment.—(1) The President and members of the

State Commission and the District Commission shall be appointed by the

State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee,

consisting of the following persons, namely:—

(a) Chief Justice of the High Court or any Judge of the High Court

nominated by him- Chairperson;

(b) Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State

Government − Member;

(c) Nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State—Member.

(2) The Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government

shall be the convener of the Selection Committee.

(3) No appointment of the President, or of a member shall be invalid

merely by reason of any vacancy or absence in the Selection Committee

other than a vacancy or absence of the Chairperson.”

(emphasis supplied)

Rule 10 of the 2020 Rules

“10. Term of office of President or Member.—(1) The President of the

State Commission shall hold office for a term of four years or upto the age

of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for

reappointment for another term of four years subject to the age limit of

sixty-seven years, and such reappointment shall be made on the basis of the

recommendation of the Selection Committee.

(2) Every member of the State Commission and the President and

every member of the District Commission shall hold office for a term

of four years or upto the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier

and shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years

subject to the age limit of sixty-five years, and such reappointment shall

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 40 of 92

be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection

Committee.”

(emphasis supplied)

52. We also take note of a separate writ petition filed before the High Court

of Bombay, bearing Writ Petition No. 3756/2023 (Suhas Milind

Untwale v. State of Maharashtra), whereby the petitioner therein sought

appointment to the post of a Judicial Member of the State Commission,

having already served as a President of the concerned District

Commission for two consecutive terms. In essence, clarification of the

directions issued by this Court in Limaye - I (supra), was sought for,

qua appointment under Rule 3(2)(a) of the 2020 Rules.

53. In the meanwhile, 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) Amendment Rules, 2023

were notified by the Union of India, with effect from 21.09.2023,

incorporating the directions issued in Limaye – I (supra).

54. It has been brought to our attention that 112 persons, including some of

the appellants before us, have been appointed to the posts of Members

of the State Commission, and Presidents and Members of the District

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 41 of 92

Commissions, vide order dated 05.10.2023, by the State of

Maharashtra, pursuant to a written examination, followed by viva voce.

Consequently, the requests seeking reappointment were rejected by the

State of Maharashtra, vide order dated 06.10.2023.

55. The High Court of Bombay, vide judgment dated 20.10.2023

(hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order - I”), impugned before us

in Civil Appeal Nos. 9982/2024, 9987/2024, 9983-9985/2024,

9989/2024, 9990/2024 and 9965-9967/2024, has partly allowed the writ

petitions and struck down Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the 2020 Rules,

finding them to be legally unsustainable, and has also quashed the

notifications, and the advertisement insofar as Paper II is concerned.

56. As regards Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules, the High Court of Bombay

found that it suffered from the following infirmities:

a. Since the Chairperson is the sole representative of the Judiciary in

the three Member Selection Committee, there is a lack of judicial

dominance, which is a direct contravention of the doctrine of

separation of powers and also an encroachment on the judicial

domain.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 42 of 92

b. There is excessive interference of the Executive in the appointment

of Presidents and Members of the State and District Commissions.

Accordingly, the said Rule was found to be in violation of the law laid

down in Rojer Mathew (supra), MBA-III (supra) and MBA-IV

(supra). The contention of the State, that Rule 6(3) of the 2020 Rules

would save the constitution of the Selection Committee from being

declared invalid, was rejected. Consequently, the notifications were

also quashed.

57. As regards Rule 10(2) of the 2020 Rules, it was found that the reduction

of the tenure of office from five years as it existed under the 2019 Rules,

to four years, was not legally sustainable, especially in view of the

dictum in MBA – III (supra).

58. On the issue of reappointment under Rule 10(2) of the 2020 Rules, it

was held that since Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules, dealing with the power

of the Selection Committee to determine its procedure, had been struck

down previously, no power was available with the Selection Committee

to determine its procedure for making recommendations for

reappointments. It was held that until Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules was

suitably amended, the Selection Committee could be guided by the

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 43 of 92

procedure for reappointment that was prevailing under Rule 8(18) of

the 2019 Rules.

59. As regards the advertisement, upon finding deviations in the conduct of

the written examination vis-à-vis the directions issued in Limaye- I

(supra), Paper II of the said advertisement was held to be without

jurisdiction. The High Court of Bombay deemed it necessary for the

written examination qua Paper II, to be re-conducted, adhering to the

directions issued in Limaye - I (supra). Finally, on the issue regarding

inclusion of important consumer related laws in the syllabus for the

written examination, the High Court of Bombay found that it was

impermissible to make any addition, alteration or modification to the

directions issued in Limaye – I (supra).

60. The High Court of Bombay, taking note of the facts of the case, had

stayed the effect and operation of Impugned Order – I for a period of

four weeks.

61. At this juncture, we may point out that most of the candidates appointed

vide order dated 05.10.2023, by the State of Maharashtra, had not been

arrayed as parties before the High Court of Bombay in the

aforementioned writ petitions aggrieved by which, some of the present

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 44 of 92

appeals have been filed. The State of Maharashtra as well as the Union

of India are also before us challenging Impugned Order - I, apart from

one of the writ petitioners before the High Court of Bombay himself.

Intervention applications have also been filed before us, by persons

similarly placed as some of the appellants.

62. The High Court of Bombay, vide a separate judgment dated 20.10.2023

(hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order - II”), impugned before

us in Civil Appeal No. 9988/2024, has held that the directions issued by

this Court in Limaye - I (supra) qua the conduct of the written

examination, relate only to the appointment of Non-Judicial members

of the State Commission and members of the District Commissions. It

held so on the basis that this Court in Limaye - I (supra), was only

concerned with the validity of Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the 2020

Rules, which pertain to the posts of Non-Judicial Members of the State

and Members of the District Commissions, and no challenge to the

validity of Rule 3(2)(a) of the 2020 Rules, which deals with the post of

a Judicial Member of the State Commission, had been made.

Accordingly, the advertisement was also restricted to appointments of

Non-Judicial members of the State Commission alone and the

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 45 of 92

candidature of the writ petitioner therein was directed to be considered

under Rule 3(2)(a) of the 2020 Rules.

63. The Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana, vide judgment

dated 22.02.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order - III”),

impugned before us in Civil Appeal Nos. 10029/2024 and 9964/2024,

was pleased to confirm the order of the learned Single Judge of the High

Court of Telangana dated 31.01.2024, wherein the appointments of the

respondents therein, to the post of Members of the District Commission,

pursuant to a written examination and viva voce, was set aside. This

was done on the premise that the Rules, based on which the respondents

therein had been appointed, had been struck down by the Division

Bench of the High Court of Bombay vide judgment and order dated

14.09.2021, prior to the issuance of the selection notification in

Telangana, and at the time that the said notification had been issued, the

operation of the aforementioned judgment had not been suspended, and

was subsequently upheld in Limaye- I (supra). Despite having taken

note of the fact that the entire selection process was concluded prior to

the directions issued in Limaye - I (supra), it was found that the

examination was not conducted in tune with the same.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 46 of 92

64. Before we deal with the submissions of the parties, we take note of the

interim order passed by us on 10.11.2023, wherein this Court had taken

note of the fact that appointments had been made by the State of

Maharashtra on 05.10.2023, after the judgment had been reserved by

the High Court of Bombay on 01.09.2023, but before it was pronounced

on 20.10.2023, and since the persons who were working at the time

would stand to be removed as a consequence of Impugned Order -

I, the interim stay granted by the High Court of Bombay was directed

to remain in operation till 24.11.2023. The said interim order has been

extended from time to time.

SUBMISSIONS

65. We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG)

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union of India, learned Senior

counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. We

have also carefully perused the written arguments along with the

documents, filed by all the parties in respect of their respective

contentions.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 47 of 92

Qua the Review Petitions seeking clarification of Limaye - I

66. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted that

Limaye - I (supra) had mandated the conduct of a written examination

followed by a viva voce, despite several States having expressed their

difficulty in doing so. It is their contention that it is virtually impossible

for persons seeking appointment to the posts of President of the State

Commission who must be a former Judge of the High Court, Judicial

Members of the State Commission and Presidents of the District

Commissions, having a judicial background, to undergo a written

examination followed by a viva voce. Reliance has been placed on the

Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the 1986 Act,

following the Model Rules framed by the Central Government,

including Rule 5(7) of the Model Rules, which indicated the manner in

which judicial persons could be considered for membership to the

Consumer fora.

Qua Impugned Order - I

67. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.

9982/2024, 9987/2024 and 9983-9985/2024, submitted that Impugned

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 48 of 92

Order – I cannot be sustained in the eye of law on the following

grounds:

a) It had not been brought to the notice of the High Court of Bombay

that the entire recruitment process had been completed, and that the

appellants have been duly appointed by the State of Maharashtra

vide order dated 05.10.2023.

b) The High Court of Bombay had no opportunity to consider the

amended Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the 2020 Rules, which

were notified while the matter was heard and reserved for orders.

c) The principles of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as the

new appointees, who include the appellants, were not made parties

before the High Court of Bombay.

d) Despite having been selected, Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, the

respondent herein, had challenged the 2020 Rules, instead of joining

the service.

e) Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules, having been repealed, could not have

been brought into operation as an interim arrangement.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 49 of 92

f) Any possible contingency that might arise in giving effect to Rule

6(1) of the 2020 Rules is taken care of under Rule 6(3) of the 2020

Rules.

g) Section 102 of the 2019 Act, which specifically empowers the State

Government to prescribe the mode of recruitment, has been

completely ignored and glossed over.

h) The ratio in Rojer Mathew (supra), MBA- III (supra) and MBA -

IV (supra), are inapplicable to the facts of the present case, as the

aforesaid judgments dealt with Tribunals where the State is usually

the litigant.

68. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No.

9990/2024 submitted that having gone through the examination process

for selection for the first term, the appellants are not required to undergo

the said process once again for the purpose of reappointment. It is

contended that Rule 6(9) and Rule 10(2) of the 2020 Rules, are

independent of each other, and that the process for fresh appointment

and reappointment of candidates cannot be equated with each other. To

buttress the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance

on the decision of the High Court of Bombay dated 18.02.2019 in Writ

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 50 of 92

Petition No. 4974/2018 (Mukund v. State of Maharashtra). Learned

counsel has also submitted that all the appointments made under the

1986 Act, were saved under Section 31 read with Section 107 of the

2019 Act. Hence, the ‘right accrued for re-appointment’ as per Rule 10

of the 2020 Rules, would have to be recognised on the basis of Rule 34

of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Appointment Rules, 2012 and

Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules read with Rule 14 of the Consumer

Protection (Salary, allowance and conditions of service of President and

Members of State and District Commission) Model Rules, 2020 made

under Section 102(1) of the 2019 Act, by the Central Government. The

said Rule 14 clearly specifies that the terms and conditions of service

of the Presidents and Members of the State and District Commissions

shall not be varied to their disadvantage during the tenure of their

office.

69. Similar submissions have been made by some of the intervenors, with

a few seeking reappointments for a second term and others for a third.

As regards those who were seeking reappointment for the third term,

we have already held, vide order dated 27.06.2024, that no one is

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 51 of 92

entitled to continue for a third term on the basis of our interim order

dated 10.11.2023.

70. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar

Limaye in Civil Appeal No. 9989/2024 seeking quashing of the

advertisement qua Paper I, submitted that the syllabus for the written

examination was in complete contradiction to and in violation of the

directions issued in Limaye – I (supra). The High Court of Bombay

failed to note that the rules of the game qua negative marking were

changed by the State of Maharashtra, just 24 hours before the date of

the written examination. The High Court of Bombay also failed to take

cognizance of events subsequent to the judgment being reserved on

01.09.2023, despite the appellant bringing them to its notice on

06.10.2023, by mentioning the matter and subsequently filing a pursis.

The results were declared on 15.09.2023, which displayed that the total

marks for Paper I of the advertisement had been arbitrarily reduced to

90 marks, so as to give an undue advantage to undeserving candidates.

The State of Maharashtra had arbitrarily added marks for candidates,

despite there being no such provision for doing so under the 2020 Rules.

Furthermore, candidates were asked to write their names on their

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 52 of 92

respective answer sheets, which resulted in the violation of the principle

of impartiality. It is thus contended that the appointment order issued

by the State of Maharashtra on 05.10.2023, is illegal. To buttress his

submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the 2019 Act, to

contend that rule making powers are only with the Union of India and

the State Government has no power to introduce its own manner of

conducting the examination, in the absence of a rule in place of Rule

6(9) of the 2020 Rules struck down in Limaye – I (supra). Any attempt

by the State Government to determine its own process of conducting

the examination, otherwise than in accordance with the process

provided for in Limaye – I (supra), is illegal.

71. Learned ASG appearing for the Union of India in Civil Appeal Nos.

9965-9967/2024, submitted that any possible contingency that might

arise in giving effect to Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules, is taken care of by

Rule 6(3) of the 2020 Rules. On the validity of Rule 10(2) of the 2020

Rules, she submitted that the term of office of the President and

Members of the National Commission is 4 years, and therefore, there

cannot be two different tenures of office within the hierarchy of

Consumer fora. In any case, the term of office is purely a policy

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 53 of 92

decision, in view of the Central Government having been empowered

to make rules under clauses (n) and (w) of Section 101(2) of the 2019

Act. She also submitted that the phrase ‘another term’ used in Rule

10(2) of the 2020 Rules, means one more term and thus, none would be

entitled to reappointment for a third term. The decision of the High

Court of Bombay dated 18.02.2019, in Writ Petition No. 4974/2018

(Mukund v. State of Maharashtra), is not applicable to the facts of the

present case as the rules concerned therein have ceased to operate after

the enactment of the 2019 Act. Upon making these submissions, it has

been fairly conceded on behalf of the Union of India that a fresh set of

Rules would be enacted replacing the existing Rules, after taking note

of the lacunae pointed out by the concerned stakeholders. We have also

been informed that the Department of Consumer Affairs, vide Letter

dated 26.11.2024, emphasised on the need to expedite the process of

appointments and that under Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules, as amended

in 2023, many States such as Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal,

and the Union Territory of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands had started

advertising vacancies in the Commissions and conducting

examinations.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 54 of 92

72. The Union of India in IA No. 97449/2024 has proposed an amendment

to the 2020 Rules, amended in 2023, as follows:

2020 Rules as amended in 2023 Proposed Amendment

4. Qualifications for

appointment of President and

member of District

Commission.—

(1) A person shall not be qualified

for appointment as President,

unless he is, or has been, or is

qualified to be a District Judge.

4. Qualifications for

appointment of President and

member of District

Commission.—

(1) A person shall not be qualified

for appointment as President,

unless he is, or has been a District

Judge.

6. Procedure of appointment.—

(1) The President and members of

the State Commission and the

District Commission shall be

appointed by the State

Government on the

recommendation of a Selection

Committee, consisting of the

following persons, namely:-

(a) Chief Justice of the High Court

or any Judge of the High Court

nominated by him- Chairperson;

(b) Secretary in charge of

Consumer Affairs of the State

Government – Member;

(c) Nominee of the Chief

Secretary of the State – Member.

6. Procedure of appointment.—

(1) The President and members of

the State Commission and the

District Commission shall be

appointed by the State

Government on the

recommendation of a Selection

Committee, consisting of the

following persons, namely:-

(a) Chief Justice of the High Court

or any Judge of the High Court

nominated by him- Chairperson;

(b) President of the State

Commission- Member;

(c) Secretary in charge of

Consumer Affairs of the State

Government – Member;

(d) Nominee of the Chief

Secretary of the State, not below

the level of Secretary to the State

Government– Member.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 55 of 92

Provided that in case of the

President of the State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission is

seeking re-appointment, there

shall be a retired Judge of the

Supreme Court or a retired Chief

Justice of a High Court, to be

nominated by the Chief Justice of

India.

6. Procedure of appointment.—

(9) The Selection Committee shall

short-list the applicant on the basis

of performance in a written test

consisting of two papers as

specified in the table below, with

the qualifying marks of fifty

percent in each paper and there

shall be viva voce of 50 marks.

6. Procedure of appointment.—

(9) The Selection Committee shall

shortlist the applicants for the

office of President of the State

Commission or the District

Commission, as the case may be,

on the basis of a personal

interaction and shall give due

weightage inter alia to the

personality, knowledge of law,

quality of the judgments,

adjudicatory experience, integrity

and special achievements.

(9A) The President of the State

Commission maybe appointed on

whole time basis or by assigning

additional charge to a sitting Judge

of the High Court.

Provided that appointment of a

sitting Judge of High Court, either

on whole time basis or on

additional charge, shall not be

made without the concurrence of

the Chief Justice of the High

Court.

(9B) The Selection Committee

shall determine its procedure for

shortlist of the applicants for the

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 56 of 92

office of Member of the State

Commission or of the District

Commission, as the case may be,

and make its recommendation

keeping in view the requirements

of the State Commission or the

District Commission, and after

taking into account the suitability,

record of past performance,

integrity and adjudicatory

experience.

73. IA No. 180566/2024 and IA No. 27612/2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9965-

9967/2024, have been filed by an advocate and by persons who are

currently serving as Presidents of District Commissions, respectively.

They oppose the proposed amendment to Rule 4(1) of the 2020 Rules,

as amended in 2023. It is their contention that the omission of the phrase

“qualified to be a District Judge”, from the qualification for

appointment to the post of President of the District Commissions,

violates principles of Administrative Law and is contrary to Article

233(2) of the Constitution.

Qua Impugned Order - II

74. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra in Civil Appeal

No. 9988/2024 submitted that Impugned Order - II cannot be

sustained in the eye of law, as appointments to the posts of Judicial and

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 57 of 92

Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission under Rule 3(2)(a) and

Rule 3(2)(b) of the 2020 Rules respectively, have merged in view of the

directions issued in Limaye - I (supra). Thus, without undergoing the

process as contemplated in Limaye - I (supra) vis-à-vis the written

examination and the viva voce, the writ petitioner therein, would not be

eligible to seek appointment to the post of Judicial Member of the State

Commission.

Qua Impugned Order - III

75. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.

10029/2024 and 9964/2024 submitted that Impugned Order – III

cannot be sustained, as Limaye – I (supra) operates prospectively and

that the judgment and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Division

Bench of the High Court of Bombay, which was impugned and upheld

in Limaye- I (supra), is inapplicable to the facts of the aforementioned

appeals. Learned counsel also submitted that the appointments of the

appellants were protected by virtue of the interim orders of this Court

in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2/2021 and Civil Appeal No.

9982/2024. Moreover, the respondent herein had herself participated in

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 58 of 92

the recruitment process, and therefore, was not entitled to question the

same.

DISCUSSION

76. Having heard the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG)

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union of India, learned Senior

counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we

shall now proceed to analyse the merit in their respective submissions.

77. Considering that the issues raised in the Review Petitions are similar to

the ones raised in the Civil Appeals, we deem it fit to tag them and pass

a common judgment.

Qua the Review Petitions seeking clarification of Limaye - I

78. Vide interim order dated 07.03.2024, this Court had already taken note

of the anomaly created in Limaye - I (supra), vis-à-vis the requirement

of holding written examinations and viva voce for persons with a

judicial background, seeking appointment under Rules 3(1), 3(2)(a) and

4(1) of the 2020 Rules. Accordingly, on a concession by the parties, the

requirement of holding a written examination and viva voce was relaxed

for the post of President of the State Commission, as an interim

measure, clarifying that appointments would be made in consultation

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 59 of 92

with and subject to the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High

Court.

“1. In the judgment of this Court in The Secretary Ministry of Consumer

Affairs vs Dr Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (Civil Appeal No.831 of 2023),

directions were issued on 3 March 2023, inter alia, in the exercise of the

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution that for the appointment

of the President and Members of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission (SCDRC) and the District Consumer Redressal Commissions,

the basis for selection would be а written test consisting of two papers, each

of 100 marks followed by а viva voce. The judgment sets out the total marks

to be assigned as well as the minimum qualifying marks by directing that

the total marks would comprise of 250, of which the written test would

carry 200 marks and viva voce 50 marks.

2. А considerable difficulty has been faced in working out of the

directions under Article 142 of the Constitution. In this backdrop, аn

interlocutory Application has been filed by the Union Government.

xxx xxx xxx

4. During the course of the hearing, it is conceded on both the sides that

no written test would be either feasible or practical for the appointment

of the President of the SCDRC for which а former Judge of the High

Court is eligible for appointment. Hence, insofar as appointments to

the post of President of the SCDRC are concerned, we direct that the

requirement of holding а written examination and viva voce in the

terms as envisaged shall stand relaxed for the present. At the same time,

it is clarified that the appointments to the office of President of the SCDRC

shall be made in consultation with and subject to the concurrence of the

Chief Justice of the High Court.”

(emphasis supplied)

79. We also take note of our order dated 11.11.2024 in Miscellaneous

Application No. 2449/2023 in Civil Appeal No. 831/2023, filed by the

Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, wherein it was clarified that

the aforesaid relaxation would enure to the benefit of persons seeking

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 60 of 92

appointment to the post of President of the State Commissions across

the country.

80. It appears to us that by inadvertence, the directions issued in Limaye –

I (supra) were made applicable to the posts of President of the State

Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and the

President of the District Commission. The lis before this Court in

Limaye - I (supra), being only with respect to the constitutional validity

of Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the 2020 Rules, the directions

issued therein shall not be applicable to the posts of President of the

State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission, and

President of the District Commission.

81. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the review petitions seeking to

clarify the directions issued in Limaye - I (supra) stand allowed to the

extent that there shall be no requirement of a written examination

followed by a viva voce for selection to the posts of President of the

State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and

President of the District Commission under Rules 3(1), 3(2)(a) and 4(1)

of the 2020 Rules, respectively.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 61 of 92

Qua Impugned Order - I

82. Before we proceed to deal with the submissions in these appeals, we

deem it fit to extract the directions issued by the High Court of Bombay

in Impugned Order - I.

“31. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed:—

(A) Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 is struck down on the ground that the

same results in diluting the involvement of the judiciary in the process of

appointment of the President and members of the State Commission and

the District Commission. The said Rule is against the spirit of the decision

of the Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew (supra).

(B) Since Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 has been struck down the

notifications dated 10.04.2023 and 13.06.2023 would not survive.

(C) Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2020 to the extent it prescribes the tenure of

the members of the State Commission and the President and members of

the District Commission to be four years is struck down as not being in

consonance with the spirit of the law laid down in the Madras Bar

Association III (supra).

(D) Since re-appointment of members of the State Commission and the

President as well as members of the District Commission under Rule 10(2)

of the Rules of 2020 is on the basis of recommendation to be made by the

Selection Committee and as Rule 6(9) of the Rules of 2020 has been struck

down in Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe (supra), till the time Rule 6(9) of the

Rules of 2020 is suitably amended the Selection Committee can consider

following the procedure for the appointment of members of the State

Commission and the President as well as members of the District

Commission by taking into consideration the procedure that was prevailing

vide Rule 8(18) of the Rules of 2019.

(E) The notice issued by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs alongwith the advertisement dated 23.05.2023 in relation

to Paper-II is held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, it would be

necessary for the Department to re-conduct the test in Paper-II by following

the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of

the Constitution of India in The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs

(supra).

(F) In view of the decision in Suhas Milind Untwale Versus The State of

Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 3756 of 2023] decided today, it is held

that the notice annexed to the advertisement dated 23.05.2023 that pertains

to the appointment on the post of Member, State Commission would be

applicable only to a candidate seeking appointment in terms of Rule 3(2)(b)

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 62 of 92

and not a candidate seeking appointment in terms of Rule 3(2)(a) of the

Rules of 2020.”

a) Rule 6(1) and Rule 10(2) of the 2020 Rules

83. Upon a perusal of the Impugned Order - I, we find that the decision

of the High Court of Bombay, in striking down Rule 6(1) of the 2020

Rules and the consequent notifications, cannot be found fault with. Rule

6(1) of the 2020 Rules, which provides for the composition of the

Selection Committee, has been rightly struck down, placing reliance

upon the doctrine of separation of powers and earlier decisions of this

Court in Rojer Mathew (supra), MBA - III (supra) and MBA - IV

(supra), as the composition of the Selection Committee as per the said

Rule indicates executive dominance. The setting aside of the

notifications is merely consequential.

Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1

“148. Composition of a Search-cum-Selection Committee is contemplated

in a manner whereby appointments of Member, Vice-President and

President are predominantly made by nominees of the Central Government.

A perusal of the Schedule to the Rules shows that save for token

representation of the Chief Justice of India or his nominee in some

committees, the role of the judiciary is virtually absent.

149. We are in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for

the petitioner(s), that the lack of judicial dominance in the Search-cum-

Selection Committee is in direct contravention of the doctrine of separation

of powers and is an encroachment on the judicial domain. The doctrine of

separation of powers has been well recognised and reinterpreted by

this Court as an important facet of the basic structure of the

Constitution, in its dictum in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 63 of 92

(1973) 4 SCC 225] , and several other later decisions. The exclusion of

the judiciary from the control and influence of the executive is not

limited to traditional courts alone, but also includes Tribunals since

they are formed as an alternative to courts and perform judicial

functions.

150. Clearly, the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committees

under the Rules amounts to excessive interference of the executive in

appointment of members and Presiding Officers of statutory tribunals

and would undoubtedly be detrimental to the independence of

judiciary besides being an affront to the doctrine of separation of

powers.

151. In R.K. Jain v. Union of India [R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4

SCC 119 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128], a three-Judge Bench of this Court

asserted the need for independent system of appointment and

administration of Tribunals to maintain public trust in the judiciary while

expressing its agony over inefficacy of the working of tribunals in the

country. In addition to discussing the perils of providing direct statutory

appeals to the Apex Court from the tribunals, it was also suggested that

there is an imminent need for reform in the manner of recruitment of

Members of tribunals to maintain public faith in the institution of judiciary.

Adjudication of disputes by Technical Members should be confined only to

cases requiring specialised technical knowledge. (Union of India v. Madras

Bar Assn. [(2010) 11 SCC 1] and Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of

India [(2014) 10 SCC 1] , SCC paras 107 and 126)

152. Subsequently, in its dictum in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of

India [(1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577], a seven-Judge Bench of

this Court noted the observations in the Malimath Committee Report,

discussing the administration of the tribunals established under Article 323-

A and Article 323-B of the Constitution. The Malimath Committee Report

had pointed out that a tribunal constituted in substitution of any other court

should have similar standards of appointment, qualifications and conditions

of service, to inspire the confidence of the public at large. Shortcomings in

composition, tenure, conditions of service, etc. of the Members of tribunals

were also highlighted in the Report as reasons for increased intervention by

the executive in the working of judicial institutions. The relevant extract is

reproduced below : (SCC pp. 305-06, para 88)

“88. … The observations contained in the Report, to this extent they

contain a review of the functioning of the tribunals over a period of three

years or so after their institution, will be useful for our purpose. Chapter

VIII of the second volume of the Report, “Alternative Modes and Forums

for Dispute Resolution”, deals with the issue at length. After forwarding

its specific recommendations on the feasibility of setting up “Gram

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 64 of 92

Nyayalayas”, Industrial Tribunals and Educational Tribunals, the

Committee has dealt with the issue of tribunals set up under Articles 323-

A and 323-B of the Constitution. The relevant observations in this regard,

being of considerable significance to our analysis, are extracted in full as

under:

‘Functioning of tribunals

8.63. Several tribunals are functioning in the country. Not all of them,

however, have inspired confidence in the public mind. The reasons are

not far to seek. The foremost is the lack of competence, objectivity and

judicial approach. The next is their constitution, the power and

method of appointment of personnel thereto, the inferior status and

the casual method of working. The last is their actual composition;

men of calibre are not willing to be appointed as Presiding Officers

in view of the uncertainty of tenure, unsatisfactory conditions of

service, executive subordination in matters of administration and

political interference in judicial functioning. For these and other

reasons, the quality of justice is stated to have suffered and the cause

of expedition is not found to have been served by the establishment of

such tribunals.

8.64. Even the experiment of setting up of the Administrative

Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has not been

widely welcomed. Its members have been selected from all kinds of

services including the Indian Police Service. The decision of the State

Administrative Tribunals are not appealable except under Article 136

of the Constitution. On account of the heavy cost and remoteness of

the forum, there is virtual negation of the right of appeal. This has led

to denial of justice in many cases and consequential dissatisfaction.

There appears to be a move in some of the States where they have

been established for their abolition.

Tribunals—Tests for Including High Court's Jurisdiction

8.65. A Tribunal which substitutes the High Court as an alternative

institutional mechanism for judicial review must be no less efficacious

than the High Court. Such a tribunal must inspire confidence and

public esteem that it is a highly competent and expert mechanism with

judicial approach and objectivity. What is needed in a tribunal, which

is intended to supplant the High Court, is legal training and

experience, and judicial acumen, equipment and approach. When

such a tribunal is composed of personnel drawn from the

judiciary as well as from services or from amongst experts in the

field, any weightage in favour of the service members or expert

members and value-discounting the Judicial Members would

render the tribunal less effective and efficacious than the High

Court. The Act setting up such a tribunal would itself have to be

declared as void under such circumstances. The same would not

at all be conducive to judicial independence and may even tend,

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 65 of 92

directly or indirectly, to influence their decision-making process,

especially when the Government is a litigant in most of the cases

coming before such tribunal. (See S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of

India [(1987) 1 SCC 124].) The protagonists of specialist tribunals,

who simultaneously with their establishment want exclusion of the

writ jurisdiction of the High Courts in regard to matters entrusted for

adjudication to such tribunals, ought not to overlook these vital and

important aspects. It must not be forgotten that what is permissible to

be supplanted by another equally effective and efficacious

institutional mechanism is the High Courts and not the judicial review

itself. Tribunals are not an end in themselves but a means to an end;

even if the laudable objectives of speedy justice, uniformity of

approach, predictability of decisions and specialist justice are to be

achieved, the framework of the tribunal intended to be set up to attain

them must still retain its basic judicial character and inspire public

confidence. Any scheme of decentralisation of administration of

justice providing for an alternative institutional mechanism in

substitution of the High Courts must pass the aforesaid test in order to

be constitutionally valid.’ ”

(emphasis in original)

153. We are of the view that the Search-cum-Selection Committee as

formulated under the Rules is an attempt to keep the judiciary away

from the process of selection and appointment of Members, Vice-

Chairman and Chairman of Tribunals. This Court has been lucid in its

ruling in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of

India [(2016) 5 SCC 1] (Fourth Judges case), wherein it was held that

primacy of judiciary is imperative in selection and appointment of

judicial officers including Judges of the High Court and the Supreme

Court. Cognizant of the doctrine of separation of powers, it is

important that judicial appointments take place without any influence

or control of any other limb of the sovereign. Independence of judiciary

is the only means to maintain a system of checks and balances on the

working of legislature and the executive. The executive is a litigating

party in most of the litigation and hence cannot be allowed to be a

dominant participant in judicial appointments.

154. We are in complete agreement with the analogy elucidated by the

Constitution Bench in Fourth Judges case [(2016) 5 SCC 1] for

compulsory need for exclusion of control of the executive over quasi-

judicial bodies of tribunals discharging responsibilities akin to courts. The

Search-cum-Selection Committees as envisaged in the Rules are

against the constitutional scheme inasmuch as they dilute the

involvement of judiciary in the process of appointment of Members of

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 66 of 92

tribunals which is in effect an encroachment by the executive on the

judiciary.”

(emphasis supplied)

Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 369

“33. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the Secretaries of the

sponsoring departments should not be members of the Search-cum-

Selection Committee. We are not in agreement with the submission of the

learned Attorney General that the Secretary of the sponsoring department

being a member of the Search-cum-Selection Committee was approved by

this Court in Union of India v. Madras Bar Assn. [(2010) 11 SCC 1] and it

would prevail over the later judgment in Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of

India (2014) [(2014) 10 SCC 1] . We have already referred to the findings

recorded in para 70 [Ed. : See also para 120(xii) for the direction in this

regard.] of the judgment in Union of India v. Madras Bar Assn. [(2010) 11

SCC 1] that the sponsoring department should not have any role to play

in the matter of appointment to the posts of Chairperson and members

of the tribunals. Though the ultimate direction of the Court was to

constitute a Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of

members to NCLT and NCLAT of which Secretary, Ministry of

Finance and Company Affairs is a member, the ratio of the judgment

is categorical, which is to the effect that Secretaries of the sponsoring

departments cannot be members of the Search -cum-Selection

Committee. We, therefore, see no conflict of opinion in the two judgments

as argued by the learned Attorney General. However, we find merit in the

submission of the learned Attorney General that the presence of the

Secretary of the sponsoring or parent department in the Search-cum-

Selection Committee will be beneficial to the selection process. But, for

reasons stated above, it is settled that the Secretary of the parent or

sponsoring Department cannot have a say in the process of selection

and service conditions of the members of tribunals. Ergo, the Secretary

to the sponsoring or parent Department shall serve as the Member-

Secretary/Convener to the Search-cum-Selection Committee and shall

function in the Search-cum-Selection Committee without a vote.

34. The Government of India is duty-bound to implement the directions

issued in the earlier judgments and constitute the Search-cum-Selection

Committees in which the Chief Justice of India or his nominee shall be the

Chairperson along with the Chairperson of the Tribunal if he is a retired

Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court and

two Secretaries to the Government of India. In case the tribunal is headed

by a Chairperson who is not a judicial member, the Search-cum-

Selection Committee shall consist of the Chief Justice of India or his

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 67 of 92

nominee as Chairperson and a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or

a retired Chief Justice of a High Court to be nominated by the Chief

Justice of India and Secretary to the Government of India from the

Ministry of Law and Justice and a Secretary of a department other

than the parent or sponsoring department to be nominated by the

Cabinet Secretary. As stated above, the Secretary of the parent or

sponsoring department shall serve as the Member-Secretary or

Convener, without a vote.”

(emphasis supplied)

Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 455

“62. The tenure of the Chairperson and Member of a tribunal is fixed at

four years by Section 184(11), notwithstanding anything contained in any

judgment, order or decree of any court. It is relevant to mention that sub-

section (11) of Section 184 has been given retrospective effect from 26-5-

2017. Rule 9 of the 2020 Rules had specified the term of appointment of

the Chairperson or Member of the Tribunal as four years. The learned

Amicus Curiae while making his submissions in MBA (3) [Madras Bar

Assn. v. Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 369] had insisted that the

Chairperson and Members of a tribunal should have a minimum term of

five years by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in S.P.

Sampath [S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124]

, MBA (1) [Union of India v. Madras Bar Assn., (2010) 11 SCC 1]

and Rojer Mathew [Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC

1] . The stand taken by him was that a short tenure would be a disincentive

for competent persons to seek appointment as Members of Tribunals. The

learned Attorney General submitted that the term of four years is subject to

reappointment. He contended that advocates who are appointed at an early

age can get more than one extension and continue till they reach the age of

superannuation. After perusing the law laid down by this Court in MBA

(1) [Union of India v. Madras Bar Assn., (2010) 11 SCC 1] and Rojer

Mathew [Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1]

which held that a short stint is anti-merit, we directed the modification

of tenure in Rules 9(1) and 9(2) as five years in respect of Chairpersons

and Members of Tribunals in MBA (3) [Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of

India, (2021) 7 SCC 369] . This Court declared in SCC para 60.4 that

the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and the Members of the tribunals

shall hold office for a term of five years and shall be eligible for

reappointment. The insertion of Section 184(11) prescribing a term of

four years for the Chairpersons and Members of Tribunals by giving

retrospective effect to the provision from 26-5-2017 is clearly an

attempt to override the declaration of law by this Court under Article

141 in MBA (3) [Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 369]

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 68 of 92

. Therefore, clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 184(11) are declared as void

and unconstitutional.”

(emphasis supplied)

84. The striking down of Rule 10(2) of the 2020 Rules as invalid, with

respect to the term of office of the President of the District Commission,

and Members of the State and District Commissions, can also not be

found fault with, in light of the settled position of law, on the aspect of

tenure of office in special fora.

85. Before we proceed with the next aspect, we may note that most of the

writ petitioners before the High Court of Bombay underwent the

impugned selection process. Having participated in the selection

process, it was not open for them to have continued to challenge the

same. To put it differently, the writ petitioners before the High Court of

Bombay would not have continued to press the reliefs sought for, had

they been selected. One cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate

at the same time.

b) Paper II

86. The question that arises for our consideration herein, is with respect to

the non-compliance of the directions issued in Limaye - I (supra) under

Article 142 of the Constitution, especially with respect to Paper II. A

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 69 of 92

direction issued by this Court in exercise of the power conferred under

Article 142 of the Constitution, with specific reference to the conduct

of a written examination followed by a viva voce, may not be read like

a statute. It is only suggestive and can only be construed to be a guiding

factor. What must be seen is the substantial compliance of the directions

issued, which we find to be present in the instant case. One must ensure

that justice is rendered, and mere technicalities shall not stand in the

way of substantive justice. There is nothing wrong in the question paper

that was set and there is no glaring error in the same. Accordingly, both

Paper I and Paper II of the advertisement are valid.

c) Validity of the appointments made by the State of Maharashtra vide

order dated 05.10.2023

87. Admittedly, the appointed candidates had not been arrayed as parties

before the High Court of Bombay. We are conscious of the fact that Writ

Petition No. 3680/2023 had been filed before the High Court of Bombay

at the initial stage of the selection process itself and also that

appointments by the State of Maharashtra were made vide order dated

05.10.2023, subsequent to the matter having been reserved for

judgment. However, considering the nature of the lis and the grievance

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 70 of 92

sought to be espoused, the appointed candidates are certainly proper and

necessary parties to the litigation, as they have gone through the entire

selection process. A decision taking away the civil rights that accrued

to them, could not have been rendered, without hearing them.

88. The High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is also a Court

of equity and good conscience, and ought to have taken note of the fact

that the selection process had almost been completed during the

pendency of the writ petitions before it. Thus, we are inclined to hold

that the 112 candidates appointed by the State of Maharashtra are

entitled to continue and complete their tenure.

89. We are inclined to grant the said relief on one more count. The

candidates merely participated in the selection process pursuant to the

advertisement made by the State of Maharashtra. Thus, their

participation in the selection process was bona fide and genuine. As

already held by us, Paper II is valid. Therefore, in the absence of any

proof that the selection process was tainted, appointments made

pursuant to the same, are upheld.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 71 of 92

d) Reappointment

90. Even though the suggestion of the High Court of Bombay in Impugned

Order - I, as regards reappointments, is infructuous on account of the

amendment in 2023 to Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules, we deem it fit to

deal with it and clarify the question of law that has been raised.

91. The High Court of Bombay has suggested that since reappointments

under Rule 10(2) of the 2020 Rules were on the basis of the

recommendations to be made by the Selection Committee, and as Rule

6(9) of the 2020 Rules had been struck down in Limaye - I (supra), till

the time Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules is suitably amended, the Selection

Committee can consider following the procedure for the appointment

of Members of the State Commission, and President as well as Members

of the District Commission by taking into consideration the procedure

that was prevailing under Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules. In our

considered view, this cannot be sustained in the eye of law. We say so

for two reasons. The 2019 Rules were notified under the 1986 Act,

which has been repealed by virtue of Section 107 of the 2019 Act. Rules

formulated under a repealed statute, stand repealed in their entirety,

once new Rules under the new/re-enacted statute have come into being.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 72 of 92

There cannot be two sets of Rules operating the field simultaneously,

when the latter has replaced the former. Merely because a particular

Rule in the latter Rules, which replaced the earlier Rules, has been

struck down, there is no deemed revival of a corresponding Rule in the

earlier one. The State Rules are no longer in the statute and there is no

question of revival of any particular Rule. Reviving an arm of a dead

person would amount to injecting life into him, especially when his role

has been taken over by another, after his departure.

Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules Rule 10(2) of the 2020 Rules

8. Procedure for Appointment of

Members.—

(18) In case of re-appointment of

the President and Member of

District Forum, as at the time of

appointing the President and

Member, the concerned candidate

have undergone the selection

process as stated in the rules, it

shall not be necessary for the said

candidates to undergo the same

process of selection. However, the

re-appointment of the President

and Member shall be done, if he

satisfies the qualifications, on a

recommendation of the Selection

Committee. The Selection

Committee while making

recommendation shall take into

consideration the Confidential

10. Term of office of President or

Member.—

(2) Every member of the State

Commission and the President and

every member of the District

Commission shall hold office for a

term of four years or upto the age

of sixty-five years, whichever is

earlier and shall be eligible for

reappointment for another term of

four years subject to the age limit

of sixty-five years, and such

reappointment shall be made on the

basis of the recommendation of the

Selection Committee.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 73 of 92

Reports, the disposal of cases, the

performance during the time of

first appointment, a general

reputation of a candidate and the

complaints, if any, pending against

the candidate.

92. Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules, though not comparable with Rule 10(2)

of the 2020 Rules in its entirety, is in fact, narrower in scope qua

reappointments, as it restricts the discretion of the Selection Committee,

and therefore, a glaring inconsistency comes forth qua Rule 10(2) of the

2020 Rules read with Rule 6(9) of the 2020 Rules. The inconsistency is

also evident in other Rules, including the rules pertaining to the

composition of the Selection Committee.

Rule 5 of the 2019 Rules

“5. Selection of the President and Members of the District Fora.—

xxx xxx xxx

(5) Selection of President and Members of District Fora shall be made by

the Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (1A) of section 10

of the Act.”

Rule 10 of the 2019 Rules

“10. Selection of Members of the State Commission.—

xxx xxx xxx

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 74 of 92

(4) Selection of Members of the State Commission shall be made by the

Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (1A) of section 16 of the

Act.”

Section 10 of the 1986 Act

“10. Composition of the District Forum.—

xxx xxx xxx

(1-A) Every appointment under sub-section (1) shall be made by the State

Government on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of

the following, namely:—

(i) the President of the State

Commission

Chairman;

(ii) Secretary, Law Department of the

State

Member;

(iii) Secretary in charge of the

Department dealing with consumer

affairs in the State

Member.

Provided that where the President of the State Commission is, by reason of

absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the Selection

Committee, the State Government may refer the matter to the Chief Justice

of the High Court for nominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act

as Chairman.”

Section 16 of the 1986 Act

“16. Composition of the State Commission.—

xxx xxx xxx

(1-A) Every appointment under sub-section (1) shall be made by the State

Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting

of the following members, namely:—

(i) the President of the State

Commission

Chairman;

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 75 of 92

(ii) Secretary of the Law

Department of the State

Member;

(iii) Secretary incharge of the

Department dealing with

Consumer Affairs in the State

Member.

Provided that where the President of the State Commission is, by reason of

absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the Selection

Committee, the State Government may refer the matter to the Chief Justice

of the High Court for nominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act

as Chairman.”

93. Rule 5(5) and Rule 10(4) of the 2019 Rules provide that the selection

of the President and Members of the District Commission and Members

of the State Commission, respectively, would be made by the Selection

Committee constituted under Section 10(1A) and Section 16(1A) of the

1986 Act. The said Selection Committee comprised the President of the

State Commission as Chairman, the Secretary of the Law Department

of the State and the Secretary in charge of the Department dealing with

Consumer Affairs in the State as Members, and in the event of the

President of the State Commission being unable to act as Chairman of

the Selection Committee, the matter could be referred to the Chief

Justice of the High Court for nominating a sitting Judge of that High

Court to act as Chairman.

94. The 2020 Rules, on the other hand, vide Rule 6(1), provides that the

Selection Committee would comprise the Chief Justice of the High

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 76 of 92

Court or any Judge of the High Court nominated by him as Chairperson,

a Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government and

a Nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State, as Members. It is thus

evident that the President of the State Commission does not form part

of the Selection Committee in the 2020 Rules. This being so, there is no

legal basis for the applicability of Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules.

95. We may also point out the logical and practical difficulty in giving effect

to the suggestion made by the High Court of Bombay. The striking

down of Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules, and the consequent setting aside

of the notifications, left the State of Maharashtra without any Selection

Committee at all. Thus, no question of the Selection Committee

considering reappointments under Rule 8(18) of the 2019 Rules, would

arise at all, as the said Committee is not in existence. We further note

that it was nobody’s case that the 2019 Rules would be applicable, and

many of the parties had already been reappointed for a second term

under the 2020 Rules. In such view of the matter, Impugned Order -

I, to the extent of suggesting the applicability of Rule 8(18) of the 2019

Rules qua reappointments, stands set aside.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 77 of 92

96. Having set aside the said suggestion made by the High Court of

Bombay, we now deal with the submissions made by those persons

seeking reappointment. While some persons before us are seeking

reappointment for a second term, others are seeking reappointment for

a third. We have been informed that for most of them, their services had

been terminated vide the order of the State of Maharashtra dated

06.10.2023. Vide interim order dated 27.06.2024, we had clarified that

in the case of Presidents/Members whose appointments were

terminated and who had filed writ petitions before the High Court of

Bombay, it would be open for the High Court of Bombay to decide their

petitions in accordance with law. Vide the same interim order, we had

also made it clear that the benefit of our interim order dated 10.11.2023,

would be available only to those persons who were actually in service

on the date of Impugned Order - I, provided that their second term had

not expired.

97. In light of the same, we make it clear that all persons seeking

reappointment can be considered for the same under the new Rules

proposed to be notified by the Union of India. We deem it fit to mention

that in a tenure-based post, there is no vested right to seek

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 78 of 92

reappointment, but only a limited one to seek consideration under the

relevant provisions. Such consideration is subject to the satisfaction of

the Selection Committee, as per the prevalent Rules. Thus, the persons

seeking reappointment can only be considered after the new Rules are

notified.

98. In this connection, we deem it fit to clarify that the consideration for

reappointment under the new Rules can be made, subject to the

satisfaction of the Selection Committee, qua the posts of President of

the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and

President of the District Commission, while for Non-Judicial Members

of the State Commissions and Members of the District Commissions, it

would depend upon the eligibility and qualification that shall be fixed

by the Union of India under the new Rules, subject to the condition that

a written examination followed by a viva voce must be conducted. The

same would apply for reappointment even beyond a second term. At this

juncture, we also deem it fit to clarify that the writ petitions pending

before the High Court of Bombay, challenging the termination order

dated 06.10.2023 and seeking reappointment on the ground of not being

required to give the written examination followed by a viva voce, will

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 79 of 92

have to be decided in terms of this judgment and larger principles of

law.

99. Accordingly, Impugned Order - I stands set aside to the extent

indicated above. Consequently, Civil Appeal Nos. 9982/2024,

9987/2024, 9983-9985/2024, 9990/2024 and 9965-9967/2024 stand

partly allowed, while Civil Appeal No. 9989/2024 stands dismissed.

Qua Impugned Order - II

100. In Civil Appeal No. 9988 of 2024, challenge is to Impugned Order

- II, wherein the High Court of Bombay had directed that the

candidature of the respondent herein/writ petitioner before the High

Court, be considered for the post of Judicial Member of the State

Commission, sans a written examination followed by a viva voce, as

contemplated under the advertisement. We find no reason to interfere

with the said order. As held by us in the earlier portions of this judgment,

Limaye - I (supra) would have no bearing on appointments to be made

under Rule 3(2)(1), 3(2)(a) and Rule 4(1) of the 2020 Rules i.e., posts

of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State

Commission and President of the District Commission. The respondent

herein had earlier served as the President of the District Commission

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 80 of 92

for two terms, which makes her eligible to be considered for

appointment under Rule 3(2)(a) of the 2020 Rules, to the post of a

Judicial Member of the State Commission, provided she fulfils the

criteria of being at least forty years of age. In such view of the matter,

we are inclined to uphold Impugned Order - II. Consequently, Civil

Appeal No. 9988 of 2024 stands dismissed.

Qua Impugned Order - III

101. In Civil Appeal No. 10029 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No. 9964 of

2024, challenge is to Impugned Order - III, wherein the High Court

of Telangana had set aside the appointment of the appellants to the post

of Members of the District Commission. This was done on the ground

that the selection process did not adhere to the directions issued in

Limaye-I (supra), amongst others. We find that the said order cannot

be sustained in the eye of law, as the appointment of the appellants was

done pursuant to a written examination as well as a viva voce. The entire

selection process had been concluded prior to Limaye - I (supra). The

directions issued in Limaye - I (supra) would only apply prospectively,

and therefore, the appointments of the appellants shall not be affected

by the same. Accordingly, Impugned Order - III stands set aside and

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 81 of 92

Civil Appeal No. 10029 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No. 9964 of 2024 are

allowed. Consequently, the appellants are directed to be reinstated in

service, if not currently serving, and be allowed to complete their tenure

in entirety.

DIRECTIONS

102. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we deem it fit to pass the

following directions, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article

142 of the Constitution:-

1) The Union of India is directed to file an affidavit on the feasibility

of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in

the form of a Consumer Tribunal or a Consumer Court, within a

period of 3 months from today, on the touchstone of the

constitutional mandate. Such a forum shall consist of permanent

members, including both staff and the Presiding officers. The Union

of India may also consider facilitating sitting Judges to head the fora.

The strength may be increased adequately.

2) In view of the submission made on behalf of the Union of India, we

direct the Union of India to notify the new Rules within a period of

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 82 of 92

4 months from the date of this Judgment, strictly adhering to the

following:

a. The earlier view of this Court in Rojer Mathew (supra),

MBA - III (supra) and MBA - IV (supra), with respect to the

tenure of office being five years, being both logical and

necessary, must be incorporated in the new Rules to be

notified.

b. The composition of the Selection Committee shall be such

that the members from the Judiciary must constitute the

majority. To achieve the same, the Selection Committee shall

comprise two members from the Judiciary, one of whom shall

be the Chairperson, and the third member from the Executive,

all of whom shall have voting rights. However, this shall not

preclude the concerned Secretary from being an ex-officio

Member of the Selection Committee, without voting rights.

The proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 6(1) of the

2020 Rules, may be accordingly modified.

c. No written examination, followed by a viva voce, shall be

required for appointment and reappointment to the posts of

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 83 of 92

President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the

State Commission and President of the District Commission.

d. A written examination followed by a viva voce shall be

required only for appointment and reappointment to the posts

of Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission and

Members of the District Commission.

e. The written examination for appointments to the State and

District Commissions shall be conducted in consultation with

the respective State Service Commissions.

f. The proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 4(1) of the

2020 Rules, as recorded by us in Para 72 of this Judgement,

that the qualification for appointment to the post of President

of the District Commission, shall be restricted to either a

serving or a retired District Judge, stands accepted.

3) Upon notification of the new Rules by the Union of India, all the

States are directed to complete the process of recruitment under the

same, within a period of 4 months from the date of the notification

of the said Rules.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 84 of 92

4) As regards the status of appointment to the posts of Presidents and

Members of the State and District Commissions, we are pleased to

issue the following directions:

SUMMARY OF THE RELIEFS

Category of Persons Relief

1. Persons appointed as

Members of the State

Commission and Presidents

and Members of the District

Commission in the State of

Maharashtra, vide order dated

05.10.2023 pursuant to the

written examination and viva

voce.

They shall be allowed to complete

their tenure in entirety. In the event

of their tenure ending before the

completion of the recruitment

process under the new Rules to be

notified, their appointment shall be

allowed to continue until the

completion of the said recruitment

process.

2. Persons seeking

reappointment in the State of

Maharashtra, after their

They can be considered for

reappointment in the State and

District Commissions, based on the

new Rules to be notified, subject to

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 85 of 92

services had been terminated

vide order dated 06.10.2023.

the condition that persons seeking

reappointment to the posts of

President and Judicial Members of

the State Commission and President

of the District Commission, shall not

be required to undergo a written

examination followed by a viva

voce, while Non- Judicial Members

of the State and District

Commissions, shall be required to

undergo a written examination

followed by a viva voce.

The writ petitions pending before

the High Court of Bombay

challenging the said termination

order of the State of Maharashtra

dated 06.10.2023, will have to be

decided in terms of this judgment

and larger principles of law.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 86 of 92

3. Presidents and Members of

the State and District

Commissions who have been

appointed and serving prior to

Limaye - I (supra).

They shall be allowed to complete

their tenure in entirety. In the event

of their tenure ending before the

completion of the recruitment

process under the new Rules to be

notified, their appointment shall be

allowed to continue until the

completion of the said recruitment

process.

4. Presidents of the State and

District Commissions, and the

Judicial Members of the State

Commission, in other States,

with/without having given the

written examination followed

by a viva voce.

(a) Those who are appointed and

serving shall be allowed to

complete their tenure in entirety.

In the event of their tenure

ending before the completion of

the recruitment process under the

new Rules to be notified, their

appointment shall be allowed to

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 87 of 92

continue until the completion of

the said recruitment process.

(b) Those who have been selected,

but not appointed, on account of

the concerned States having

stayed the appointment process

during the pendency of these

appeals, shall be appointed to the

respective post, and shall be

allowed to continue in office till

the entirety of their tenure.

5. Persons who are selected to

the posts of Non-Judicial

Members of the State

Commission and Members of

the District Commission,

without having undergone a

(a) If already appointed and serving:

(i) In case the selection process

had been completed prior to the

decision of this Court in Limaye

- I (supra), such persons shall be

entitled to complete their tenure

in entirety. In the event of their

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 88 of 92

written examination followed

by a viva voce.

tenure ending before the

completion of the recruitment

process under the new Rules to

be notified, their appointment

shall be allowed to continue

until the completion of the said

recruitment process.

(ii) In case the selection process

has been completed post the

decision of this Court in Limaye

- I (supra), such persons shall be

entitled to continue in their

respective posts till the

completion of the recruitment

process under the new Rules to

be notified.

(b) If selected but not appointed,

such persons shall not be entitled

to be appointed.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 89 of 92

6. Non-Judicial Members of the

State Commission and the

Members of the District

Commission, who have given

the written examination and

viva voce.

(a) If already appointed and serving,

they shall be allowed to continue in

service for the entirety of their

tenure. In the event of their tenure

ending before the completion of the

recruitment process under the new

rules to be notified, their

appointment shall be allowed to

continue until the completion of the

said recruitment process.

(b) If selected, but not appointed, on

account of the State having stayed

the appointment process during the

pendency of these appeals, such

persons shall be appointed to the

respective posts, and shall be

allowed to continue in office for the

entirety of their tenure.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 90 of 92

7. Persons seeking

reappointment in other States

after termination of their

services.

They can be considered for

reappointment in the State and

District Commissions, based on the

new Rules to be notified, subject to

the condition that persons seeking

reappointment to the posts of

President and Judicial Members of

the State Commission and President

of the District Commission, shall not

be required to undergo a written

examination followed by a viva

voce, while Non- Judicial Members

of the State and District

Commissions, shall be required to

undergo a written examination

followed by a viva voce.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 91 of 92

We make it clear that for all those appointments which have been

allowed to continue vide this Judgment, the tenure shall be a period of 4

years. Such persons shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of this

Judgment qua a five-year tenure, subject to the directions issued

hereinabove. We also make it clear that this Judgment shall apply

prospectively, except to the extent indicated in the directions

hereinabove.

103. Review Petition (Civil) No. 1313/2024 in Civil Appeal No.

831/2023, Review Petition (Civil) 1315/2024 in Civil Appeal No.

833/2023 and Review Petition (Civil) 1314/2024 in Civil Appeal No.

832/2023 are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Civil Appeal No.

10029/2024 and Civil Appeal No. 9964/2024 are allowed. Civil Appeal

No. 9982/2024, Civil Appeal No. 9987/2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 9983-

9985/2024, Civil Appeal No. 9990/2024 and Civil Appeal Nos. 9965-

9967/2024 are partly allowed, and Civil Appeal No. 9988/2024 and Civil

Appeal No. 9989/2024 stand dismissed. The intervention applications,

not already disposed of by us, stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 92 of 92

104. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

...…………………… …. J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

…………………………. J.

(M. M. SUNDRESH)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 21, 2025