On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court issued key directions to the Central Government for reforming the appointment process of judicial and non-judicial members in consumer forums across India. The Court mandated that new Rules must ensure a five-year tenure for all such appointments and remove written exams for certain key judicial positions.

A Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and MM Sundresh delivered the judgment with detailed instructions to the Centre.

Read also: Supreme Court Directs Tamil Nadu to Identify Agama Temples, Allows Priest Appointments in Non-Agama

"The Union of India must file an affidavit on creating a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes—like a Consumer Tribunal or Consumer Court—within three months."

The Court emphasized the need for permanent presiding officers and sufficient staff. It also suggested the Centre may allow sitting judges to head these forums and increase staff strength.

Further, the Centre must notify the new Rules within four months, based on the following points:

"The new Rules must include a five-year tenure as seen in earlier decisions like Rojer Mathew and MBA-III/IV, which is logical and necessary."

Read also: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma, Directs Petitioners

• The Selection Committee must have judicial majority: Two judges (one as Chairperson) and one executive member with voting rights. The relevant Secretary can be part of the committee without voting rights.
• No written test or viva will be needed for:
  • President of State Commission
  • Judicial Members of State Commission
  • President of District Commission

"Only Non-Judicial Members of State and District Commissions need to take a written exam and viva voce."

• These exams must be held in consultation with respective State Service Commissions.
• The Court accepted the Centre’s proposal on qualifications for the District Commission President:

"Only serving or retired District Judges can be appointed as Presidents of District Commissions."

After notification of the new Rules, the States must complete recruitment within four months.

Background:

This verdict came in response to an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court decision on appointments and service conditions of members in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Read also: Supreme Court Urges Permanent Forum for Consumer Disputes, Seeks New Appointment Rules from Union

The High Court had:

• Struck down Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules for violating judicial independence, citing judgments like Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association.
• Partially struck down Rule 10(2) which extended member tenure to five years or till age 65/67, referring to MBA III.

Due to lack of clarity on reappointment, the High Court allowed temporary use of Rule 8(18) from the 2019 Rules.

"The Supreme Court has now cleared the path for a uniform, transparent, and judicially sound framework for appointments in consumer forums."

Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Others vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9982/2024