Supreme Court upholds recent consumer forum appointments, strikes down Selection Committee rule and directs fresh uniform Rules within four months

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and M. M. Sundresh heard a batch of Civil Appeals and connected matters (including review petitions) arising out of challenges to the Consumer Protection (Qualification… ) Rules, 2020 and appointments made by State authorities. The appeals principally concerned the constitution of the Selection Committee (Rule 6(1)), tenure of office (Rule 10(2)), the scope of earlier directions in The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Limaye (Limaye‑I) about mandatory written tests and viva voce, and validity of selections and appointments made by the State of Maharashtra and Telangana.

The Court held that Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules — as to the Selection Committee’s composition — was rightly struck down by the High Court for diluting judicial dominance and inviting executive overreach, and that Rule 10(2) required reconsideration in view of established precedents on tenure of members of adjudicatory bodies. The Court clarified Limaye‑I’s directions on written examinations: the requirement of a written test followed by viva voce would not apply to appointment or reappointment of the President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission, and Presidents of District Commissions (Rules 3(1), 3(2)(a) and 4(1)), but would continue to apply to Non‑Judicial Members of State and District Commissions. The Court upheld the validity of the Maharashtra selection exercise of 05.10.2023 for 112 appointees and directed the Union to notify fresh uniform Rules within four months with specified structural safeguards (including judicial majority on Selection Committees and a five‑year tenure principle). The Court also directed the Union to file an affidavit on the feasibility of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.”

Background The litigation traced back to challenges against the 2020 Rules framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and earlier High Court orders (Bombay Division Bench, 14.09.2021) which had struck down parts of the 2020 Rules (notably stringent experience thresholds and an unfettered Rule 6(9)). This Court in Limaye‑I (03.03.2023) validated some of those findings and — exercising powers under Article 142 — prescribed that appointments to State and District consumer fora should be made on the basis of a written test (two papers) and viva voce, and reduced the experience requirement to ten years for Non‑Judicial members. While Limaye‑I sought uniformity, States including Maharashtra issued selection notices and completed an examination and viva process; Maharashtra appointed 112 candidates on 05.10.2023. The Bombay High Court in October 2023 (Impugned Order‑I) struck down Rule 6(1) and Rule 10(2) (tenure reduced to four years) and quashed notifications and aspects of the advertisement, and directed re‑conduct of Paper II. Telangana High Court earlier set aside certain appointments on related grounds. Petitioners, appointees and the Union approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court accepted that Limaye‑I’s Article 142 directions had been practically difficult when applied to judicial office‑holders and, by interim and final orders, relaxed the written‑test requirement for the posts of State Commission President, Judicial Members and District Commission Presidents, clarifying that appointments to those posts could be made in consultation with the Chief Justice of the respective High Court. The Court emphasised the constitutional matrix underlying consumer justice — noting that “Man is what he consumes” and that “consumerism constitutes the very spirit of the Constitution” — and directed systemic reform: a new set of Central Rules within four months ensuring judicial majority on Selection Committees, retention of a five‑year tenure principle as per prior precedents, written tests only for non‑judicial posts, consultation with State Public Service Commissions for examinations, and consideration of a permanent adjudicatory structure with secure tenure. The Court allowed review petitions to that extent, partly allowed and partly dismissed the assorted appeals as recorded, and ordered States to complete recruitment under the new Rules within four months of their notification.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 752 Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Ors. v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Ors. — represented by various counsel (names as per separate cause lists) For the Respondent(s): Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors.; Mr. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General of India, appeared for the Union of India; other parties represented by senior and junior counsel as per record.