Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye

2025 INSC 752
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)

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2025.05.21
17:13:35 IST
Reason:
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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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,

(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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.”

“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)

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

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

(emphasis supplied)

“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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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, t rade 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 19 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 20 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
rd
Union Bank of Switzerland, India is set to become the 3 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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 29 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 30 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 31 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 32 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 33 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 34 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:—

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

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 36 of 92

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 37 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 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 42 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 43 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 44 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 45 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 46 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 47 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 48 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 49 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 50 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 51 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 52 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 53 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:

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

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

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 56 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 57 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 58 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

(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 59 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 60 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 61 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 62 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 63 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 64 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 65 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 66 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 67 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 68 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 69 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 70 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 71 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.

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 72 of 92

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 73 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:—

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:—

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 74 of 92

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 75 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 76 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 77 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 78 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 79 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 80 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 81 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 82 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 83 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

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 84 of 92

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 85 of 92

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 86 of 92

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 87 of 92

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 88 of 92

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 89 of 92

Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 & Connected Matters Page 90 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 91 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



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