In the matter of The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs versus Dr Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others, the Apex Court of India held that if a person is having his/her bachelor's Degree and having a professional experience in the field of Consumer and Public Affairs, Legal etc that person should be treated as eligible for the appointment as the President, Member of the State and District Consumer Commission.

By exercising Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, which states that –

The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

The Bench headed by Justice MR Shah and Justice MM Sundresh directed:

“Till the amendments are made in order to do complete justice under A. 142 we direct that in future a person having Bachelor’s degree from a recognised university and who is a person of ability, integrity standing and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration etc. shall be treated as qualified for appointment as President and member of State and District Commission. We also direct that for appointment ent the appointment shall be based on the performance in 2 papers. Qualifying marks in the papers shall be 50% and there must be a viva for 50 marks each.”

The bench observed that transparency in the appointment process is absent and Under Rule 6(9) the Selection Committee is conferred with discretionary and uncontrolled power to determine its procedure, to recommend candidates to be appointed as Presidents and members of the State and District Commission.

The Bench also observed that the Central Government has tried to override the judgments of the Supreme Court, including the one in Mathe draws Bar Association, which is not permissible.

On the issue of minimum years of experience, the Bench opined –

“We considered the validity of Rule 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) provisioning a minimum of 20 and 15 years of experience. We have also held it is not permissible and directed to consider 10 years of experience in line with the Madras Bar Association. We see no reason to interfere with the reasons provided by the High Court.”

The Court further said that the appointment was to be made on the basis of the performance in the written test of 2 papers for 100 marks each and 50 marks for viva. They are also to come with an amendment to provide 10 years of experience to become eligible to be president and members of the State and District Commission instead of 20 and 15 years respectively.