HC Quashes rules barring lawyers with experience of 10-20 years from serving at consumer commissions

Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench)

The Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020 (Rules of 2020) to the extend prescribing a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Commission under the Act of 2019, is an attempt to circumvent the directions issued in MBA-2020 and UPCPBA. Hence, they are arbitrarily, illegal and violates principle of equality before law.

 In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules of 2020 prescribing a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Commission, are unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT, NAGPUR BENCH

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.