GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO SELUKAR v. MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE
Discusses constitutional principles, statutory interpretation, separation of powers, and natural justice, applicable across various legal domains.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 752
Decision Date: 21-05-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, 1949; Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020; General Principles of Law
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment extensively discusses the essence of consumerism within the framework of the Constitution. It refers to the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV, specifically citing Article 38, which pertains to securing a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, and Article 39, which outlines certain principles of policy to be followed by the State, including the distribution of material resources and prevention of concentration of wealth. Article 47, concerning the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and improve public health, is also cited. The judgment also mentions Article 14, concerning equality before the law, arguing that if commodities are enjoyed solely by a particular section of society, it infringes upon this fundamental right. Article 142 is mentioned in the context of exercising power to issue directions for conducting written examinations and viva voce for appointments to Consumer fora. The judgment also refers to the basic structure doctrine. Article 226 and 233 are also mentioned.
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: The judgment refers to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the 1986 Act") and its objective to provide better protection to consumers' interests. It discusses the Act's framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and its comprehensive definition of "consumer". The judgment cites State of U.P. v. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Assn., (2017) 1 SCC 444, where directions were issued to frame Model Rules. The judgment also discusses Sections 10(3), 13(1)(c), 14(3), 16(2), and 30(2) of the 1986 Act in relation to the Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowances, and Conditions of Service of President and Members of State Commission and District Forum) Rules, 2019. Section 30-A is also mentioned. Section 31 and 107 are also mentioned.
- Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020: The judgment extensively discusses the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 ("the 2020 Rules"). It specifically addresses challenges to Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 6(1), 6(9), and 10(2) of the 2020 Rules. The judgment notes that the High Court of Bombay declared these rules unconstitutional. Rule 3 pertains to qualifications for appointment of President and members of the State Commission, Rule 4 pertains to qualifications for appointment of President and member of District Commission, Rule 6 pertains to the procedure of appointment, and Rule 10 pertains to the term of office of President or Member. The judgment also discusses proposed amendments to Rule 4(1) and Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the doctrine of separation of powers, particularly in the context of the composition of Selection Committees for appointments to Consumer fora. It emphasizes the need for judicial dominance in such committees to maintain the independence of the judiciary. The judgment also touches upon the principles of natural justice, specifically noting that the new appointees should have been made parties before the High Court of Bombay. The principle of "approbate and reprobate" is also mentioned, stating that one cannot participate in a selection process and then challenge it. The judgment also discusses the concept of prospective vs. retrospective application of judgments.
🔒 For Members Only