Read Time: 13 minutes

Supreme Court today, while hearing Suo Motu Writ Petition on Appointments of President, Members, Staff, in Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums, directed all States to notify Rules under Section 44 of the Consumer Act, 2019 and advertise all vacancies, existing and prospective – within 2 weeks as also to fill the same, by maximum 8 weeks. Centre has been issued similar directions with respect to the NCDRC, and further asked to conduct a comprehensive Legislative Impact Assessment over the new Act of 2019.

A Division Bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, while hearing the matter today, issued the following directions,

1. On issue of appointment of President and members: Some of the States have not notified the Rules under Section 44 of the Act - we direct all States to notify Rules within 2 weeks from today. We further direct that if Rules under Section 44 are not notified within 2 weeks, the model Rules by the Union of India will automatically kick off and apply to the concerned UTs and States (Model Rules 2020).
2. In view of the large number of vacancies, we direct that all existing and potential vacancies be advertised, if not already advertised – within two weeks.
3. All States and UTs, who have not constituted a Selection Committee, are directed to set up the same, within 4 weeks.
4. All vacancies whether for the post of Member or President, shall be filled by the 30 States/UTs within a maximum period of 8 weeks.
5. It appears that some of the States are on an excuse of selection being held up, as the number of posts have not been sanctioned by the Central Government - Reading of the provision shows that there is a statutory mandate of 4 members, the least - thus as far as President and 4 members are concerned there is a State Mandate - it is only beyond that the Centre consultation is required. Therefore, this cannot curtail appointment of four members in any case.
6. So far as infrastructure and manpower is concerned, it appears that most of the affidavit has been filed at the last minute - resulting in the inability of Amicus to suggest on the same. We are unwilling to approve such filings at last minute. We direct to provide an updated position on these aspects to be furnished to the Amicus within 2 weeks from today.

States were also directed to comply with the earlier order of providing data related to vacancies, for the purpose of updating the same on NCDRC portal – within 2 weeks. UTs of J&K and Ladakh are also asked to file their responses.

Courtroom Exchange

While hearing the matter, Justice SK Kaul said,

“Don't create hopes when you are unwilling to fulfil aspirations. If you raise hopes that consumer will get their disputes redressed, you have to have adequate no. of people to deal with the cases coming up.”

With respect to NCDRC, it was informed that out of 6 vacancies, 4 were filled up with one vacancy likely to arise in the near future.

Compliances on the same timelines were directed to the Union.

Court also heard on the aspect of Legislative Impact Assessment of the new Act brought in 2020, as reflected under Para 4 to 8 of the February 22, 2021 Order.

“Once the legislative committee made these changes, what impact will it have on litigation is the study that should have been carried out. This is the irony of all legislation - you never do legislative impact study,” Justice Kaul said to ASG Mr. Lekhi.

Court was informed that the new Act was only the modification of the older one, to which no objection was raised by the States, however later, certain letters in this respect was made.

Dictating the order on this aspect, the bench said,

“Atleast now a comprehensive legislative impact assessment must be carried out – Union Of India Affidavit does not deal with the aspects related to Para 5 of our order dated 22 Feb, 2021 but is confined only to Para 6. The study be undertaken and placed before us within 4 weeks”

The bench added that now since 2 years have passed and the Centre is equipped with the data related to filings under the changed pecuniary limits, a detailed study can be carried out with respect to impact of the new Act.

Brief Background

 

On the last date of hearing, Court placed on record the Statement by Advocate General for Punjab – that there is no answer as to why the process of filling up vacancies hasn’t begun yet, however, the same shall be done within 3 weeks.

Directions were issued to the Union and Other States to place Affidavits on record.

Learned Amicus was granted 2 weeks time to study, analyse the material so placed.

The present Suo Motu Writ Petition was taken up by the Top Court to deal exclusively with the issue of vacancies in the District/State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions. Court had recorded in its order dated February 22, 2021 that different States had different updated timelines – while the position in some of the States, as reflected on the website, was updated till 2020, the others were left only till 2014.

The Division Bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta, had then observed,

“This is something which cannot be countenanced as the States should be upgrading and informing the National Commission website about the vacancy position existing as on date, more so, in view of Section 17(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which assigns the task of overseeing the issue of functioning of the State Commissions and District Commissions to the National Commission.”

Directions were issued to the Union & State Governments to respond broadly on:

• Information regarding vacant positions in each State – data updated till March 1, 2021 and the foreseeable vacancy in the next 6 months.
• Time period by States to formulate Rules for recruitment, in view of the new 2019 Act.
• States which have framed Rules to inform how much time will take to fill all existing and prospective vacancies.
• Central Govt. to inform the legislative impact study behind bringing the new Act of 2019 – focussing enhanced Jurisdictional aspects.
• Issue of Infrastructural needs

Case Title: In RE: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/ Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India