This article explores the recent ruling by the Supreme Court (SC) under Article 142, focusing on its implications on the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, and the Consumer Protection Act 2019. In the judgment, the SC reduced the minimum professional experience required for professionals, including lawyers, to become eligible for appointment as President and members of state consumer commissions and district forums.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The recent Supreme Court ruling has made significant changes concerning professionals’ eligibility for appointments to the state consumer commission and district forums. The court directed both the Central and state governments to amend 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.
Previously, the rules stated that professionals needed a minimum professional experience of 20 years and 15 years for appointment to the State consumer commissions and District forums respectively. However, the Court has now ruled that these positions may be occupied by those with just 10 years of experience. This change will remain effective until appropriate amendments are implemented.
To further ensure the competency of the candidates, the court has also introduced written exams and viva voce to evaluate their performance.
Understanding Article 142
Article 142 is an intrinsic part of the Constitution that grants discretionary power to the Supreme Court. It enables the court to pass necessary decrees or orders to ensure complete justice in any case or matter brought before it.
In its early evolution, Article 142 was praised for facilitating justice for deprived sections of society and aiding environmental protection. A notable example includes the cleansing of the Taj Mahal. Despite the good intentions behind it, there have been concerns about the court’s use of this article leading to judicial overreach, potentially infringing on the doctrine of ‘separation of powers.’
Article 142 and Judicial Overreach
There have been instances where the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 has raised eyebrows. One such example was the prohibition of selling alcohol within a 500-meter distance from national and state highways. While the central government initially restricted this rule to national highways, the court extended it to state highways as well.
Critics argue that decisions like these create a feeling of unpredictability about Article 142’s usage, where even individuals’ fundamental rights may be overlooked. However, defenders note that it often acts as a vital tool for delivering justice and ensuring fairness in a range of areas.
Conclusion
In summary, the recent Supreme Court ruling on Article 142 has brought significant changes to the professional experience requirements for appointments to the state consumer commission and district forums. Simultaneously, the case also raises questions about the potential for judicial overreach and its implications for the doctrine of separation of powers.