CHENNAI: The consumer grievance redressal forums in the State may remain headless for a little longer due to two reasons – the unavailability of judges to head the selection committee, which makes the recommendations to the State government; and the Bombay High Court’s striking down of certain provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, on eligibility criteria for selection and appointment.
Two judges of the Madras High Court – MM Sundresh and TS Sivagnanam – were earlier nominated by the Chief Justice to the selection committee for recommending appointments to the state commission for consumer protection, and its district forums.
The former, however, moved out of the court after he was elevated to the Supreme Court, and the latter was transferred to Calcutta High Court, leaving no one to head the committee. When a petition seeking orders to nominate heads and members to the consumer protection bodies came up recently before the Madras High Court’s first bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu, they said a new nomination to the selection committee is under process.
“... a new nomination is in the process of being made, whereupon, after the position as to qualifications is settled, the appointments or recommendations for appointments may be made,” they said. The Bombay High Court, last month, struck down sections 3 (2) (b), 4 (2) (c) and 6 (9) of 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.
These sections had made it mandatory for people in president posts to have twenty and fifteen years of experience, and had set the age limits as well. The new rules now provide for the selection committee to 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 of the candidates
Citing the Bombay High Court’s order, the State government submitted before the Madras High Court that the Central government had sought suggestions from the State regarding provisions such as qualifications of the members. The State government furnished its suggestions, but the Central government is yet to come to a decision.
The petitioner, Sunil Sait, pointed out that consumer commissions in 25 districts have remained without heads for about a year, and prayed that the incumbents be allowed to continue until they are replaced.