The review petition was filed by the Supreme Court, which questioned the judgment of 21 May on the appointment, eligibility, selection and possession of the President and members of the state and district consumer commissions.
The petition was filed by Parivarthan, a non -governmental organization based in Kerala, which deals with the support of good administration of public affairs, legal states and consumer protection. The application is questioned by the judgment of the court for the peak 21st of May on the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 on appointment and other aspects of the President and members of these commissions.
The petition expresses serious concerns about the appointment, eligibility, selection and possession of the presidents and members of the state and district consumer commissions, as stated in the judgment. Restriction of capacity for the opinion of the President of the District Commission on Operation or retirement District Judges excludes qualified and experienced advocates who are otherwise eligible under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution. Similarly, the imposition of compulsory written examinations is described as disproportionate and disturbing for continuity in the Office, he says.
The petition says that while Article 142 of the Constitution grants broad powers to the Supreme Court, it does not allow the prescribing a substantial qualification or to direct the Union’s government to the Act on the Act on the Act on the Act on the Act on the Act. This is because it would interfere with the legislative domain. Such instructions, the petition emphasizes, threatens the principle of separation of powers and the risks of determining unhealthy constitutional precedens.
The petition further emphasizes that court directions cannot replace legislative or executive functions, as this undermines the autonomy of the legislative corps and dilutes the institutional balance that the Constitution expects.
Through the review petition, Parivarthan sought to re -evaluate and regulate the contested instructions of the Supreme Court. This petition is to adhere to constitutional decency and maintain institutional balance, except that the 2019 Consumer Protection Act is introduced in accordance with its real goals, he says.
Published – 7 September 2025 20:26
