Vacancies in Consumer Forums: Supreme Court Directs States To File Reply
The Division Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul & Justice Hemant Gupta have directed the states who have not responded to the order dated February 22, 2021 pertaining to vacancies in State Commission & District Forum within two weeks.
Senior Advocate Mr Gopal Sankarnayaran & Advocate Mr Aditya Naraian appeared as Amicus Curiae & Sr Advocate Shraddha Deshmukh appeared for Union of India.
Mr Narain informed the Bench that 22 states had filed their replies as per the order dated February 22,2021 & 14 states did not file the reply. He also submitted that Union of India vide its letter sought time of three weeks to comply with the directions issued.
Ms. Deshmukh sought time to answer the questions in the affidavit in a better manner.
“The questions were not complex. Do you want us to issue directions for compliance between you & your officials also?”, said Justice SK Kaul.
Sr Advocate Mr Gopal Sankarnarayan informed the Bench that the Rules that the Central Government had to frame related to the qualifications for the members were already in place & that the state also had to make rules for the State Commission as well as the District Commission. He also submitted that the other aspect related to the Selection Committee & requested the Court to issue directions in this regard to the Convener.
“Please give us a note of the directions that you want us to issue. We would do that. We want progress to be made in this aspect. This will not happen overnight. But, the progress has to be done.”, said Justice Kaul.
In the present matter, the Bench was hearing a suo moto petition related to the issue of inaction of Governments in appointing President and members/staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions across India.
The Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul & Justice Hrishikesh Roy on January 25, 2021 appointed learned counsel Mr Aaditya Narain led by Senior Counsel Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel as Amicus to assist the Court in the matter. The Bench directed the amicus to obtain the requisite material, to analyse the same & to facilitate the data to be placed in the Court.
It also issued notices to all the respondents with a direction to show as to how many posts were occupied, how many were vacant and what was the nature of infrastructure which was made available.
“Consumer rights are important rights and non-manning of posts and inadequate infrastructure would deprive citizens of a redressal of the grievances.”, the Bench remarked.
The Bench on February 22, 2021 took note of the information regarding vacancy positions in State Commission and District Forums which was taken from the website of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission), the position is reflected as on 30.11.2020.
“The surprising part is that the position vis-a-vis different States is anterior in time i.e. in some States it is updated to October, 2020, while in some States it is as far back as 2014. This is something which cannot be countenanced as the States should be upgrading and informing the National Commission website about the vacancy position existing as on date, more so, in view of Section 17(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which assigns the task of overseeing the issue of functioning of the State Commissions and District Commissions to the National Commission.”, the Bench remarked.
Thereafter, the Bench vide order dated February 22, 2021 directed the Union of India & State Govt to respond on the following aspects:
1) Information regarding vacancy positions should be sent by all States to the National Commission within two weeks. This information should give the position as on 1st of March , 2021 and should also specify the vacancies which are going to arise in the next six months from that date. The updated information should be thereafter uploaded on the website of the National Commission.
2) In view of the new Act of 2019, some of the States have notified the amended Rules for recruitment while others have not. Insofar as the States who have not notified the Rules, they should indicate the time period within which the new Rules will come into force.
3) The States which have notified the Rules should inform as to how much time will process for all the existing and prospective vacancies for a period of six months will be completed. This information should also be furnished by the States which have not framed the Rules by specifying the time period within which the rules will be framed (as aforesaid) and the time period within which thereafter their selection process will be completed.
4)The Central Government to inform whether any legislative impact study was completed before bringing in the new Act of 2019 and to place the said study before this Court.
5) The new Act expands the jurisdiction of the Consumer forums to many new areas and thus, logically a legislative impact study ought to have been completed keeping in mind the litigation which will shift in the subjects added to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Tribunals.
6)There is also a shifting of pecuniary jurisdiction by increasing the jurisdiction of the District and State Forum. This would result in transfer of a large number of cases to these two foras. Thus, the legislative impact study ought to have taken this into consideration as to what are cases which are likely to be shifted.
7)The two aforesaid aspects should have formed a part of the legislative impact study to see as to what are the quantum of cases the Tribunals at different levels will be faced with not only now but in the reasonable time frame for the future.
8)There should have been analysis both at the State level and the National level of the number of foras which are required to deal with the increase in the financial jurisdiction and the expanded legal area of jurisdiction.
9) We are also informed that in some of the State where rules have been notified there are problems with the composition of the selection committee as the committee has to be chaired by the Chief Justice or his nominee. It is stated that at least in the States of Bihar and Uttarakhand the nomination by the Chief Justice is awaited. We are sure that in all States the respective Chief Justices will take care of the situation where a request has been so made.
10) There is also an issue of appropriate infrastructures. These are Consumer friendly institutions which have to deal with the public. There should be not only sufficient number of presiding officers but support staff for the presiding officers which will include proper Court rooms, supporting staff, stenographers etc. and facilities for the incoming public and lawyers who attend to these proceedings.
11) We also call upon the States to file with their reports, the photographs of the existing infrastructure.
12) Learned Amicus have pointed out that they have annexed a questionnaire dealing with both the vacancy position and infrastructure which would facilitate them to analyze the same. He submits that this questionnaire can be further tweaked in view of the orders passed today and the needful will be done and circulated to the State and the Union Government within a period of one week from today so that they respond accordingly as per the questionnaire.
13) We may notice that insofar as the National Commission is concerned, learned ASG submits that endeavour has been in progress to fill up the six vacancies and the matter is with the ACC. On our query, we are told that it is with the ACC from July, 2020! This is hardly expected at the apex level as it creates a cascading effect down which does not speak well of the institution. We expect due care to be taken on this behalf so that at least these vacancies are filled up by the time we take up these proceedings on the next date.
The matter is now listed for
Case Title: RE: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India vs. Union of India and ors.| SMW (C)02/2021