The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the Central government should not make false promises with regard to filling up the vacancies in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). .Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noted that there are three vacancies in the NCDRC and directed the government to fill up the same within 8 weeks.Pertinently, the Court also ordered the government to conduct a legislative impact study of the Consumer Protection Act within 4 weeks. When the Central government lawyer submitted that the same is too short a time period to conduct such a study, the Court remarked that the government has been churning out laws within very short time periods and hence impact of laws can also be studied within such short duration."You are making legislations instantly. You are rushing through other things you can rush through this too. Now at least focus on the post requisites," the Court said. The Court was hearing a suo motu case regarding vacancies in NCDRC and SCDRCs. .When Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, appearing on behalf of the Central government, mentioned that terms of appointment is as per the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, the Bench stated that "when one has will to do something, then there is no confusion.".Amicus Curiae Aditya Narain informed the bench that out of seven, four vacancies have been filled, and three are remaining. "If you can appoint four then why not remaining three," the Court asked the government..When ASG Lekhi stated that he will ask Government to make the appointments at the earliest, the top court said,"Don't create hopes if you are unwilling to fulfill the aspirations. Consumers get no redressal. You have to have requisite number of people to deal with the cases.".The Court also said that the Centre should not get more time than States to fill up vacancies. ."We are informed that there are three vacancies in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission now. There is no reason why centre should get more time than States. The schedule laid above for states applies equally to the central government," the Bench ordered. .Supreme Court has today directed that to ensure that all the all its directions are complied with, the concerned Chief Secretaries of the States will have to attend court virtually in case of non-compliance within the time frame stipulated by top court. It has been clarified that the same would be the position for Union of India where the concerned Secretary would be the Secretary, Consumer Affairs will have to be present through virtual hearing in case of non-compliance..With reference to the Legislative Impact Study which the top court had asked the Centre to conduct in relation to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the bench was informed that such a study was not conducted and what would be needed now is a "post facto exercise."."You can just say it is not done. I have full sympathy for you since drawing information is a difficult task for the Govt. The answer is a no. You have not done. Once the legislative committee made these changes, what impact will it have on litigation is the study that should have been carried out. This is the irony of all legislation - you never do legislative impact study. It is a post facto analysis," observed the bench. .Supreme Court ordered the Centre to "at least" conduct a comprehensive legislative impact study after the legislation has been enacted and place a report before the top court within four weeks.."We are thus, of the view that at least now a comprehensive Legislative Impact Study should be done post the legislation as what has been done by writing a letter post facto is only about the pecuniary jurisdiction. It does not deal with the aspects referred to in para 5 of our order dated 22.02.2021 but is confined only to para 6. The Study should be undertaken and placed before us within four weeks" reads the order..The top court while elaborating on the need for the impact study states,"The legislative impact study was in the context that the new Act expanded the jurisdiction of the consumer forums which would result in the litigation shifting to the Consumer Tribunals apart from the aspect of the variation in the pecuniary jurisdiction by increasing the jurisdiction of the District and State forums. The latter would also again result in cases being transferred to these forums. Unfortunately, none of this was done before the Act came into force," reads the order..When ASG Lekhi said that four weeks was a short time period, the bench noted, "you are making legislations instantly. You are rushing through other things you can rush through this too. Now at least focus on the post requisites.".Supreme Court today also directed for vacancies in State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in all States and Union Territories (UTs) to be filled within a period of eight weeks..[BREAKING] All vacancies in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions to be filled within 8 weeks: Supreme Court."When legislature mandates, sanction or no sanction does not matter. We are not giving extensions. Enough time was given to set houses in order. Time will be fixed now," the Court said..The Court therefore, passed the following directions to States and UTs:1. Some of the States have not notified Rules under Section 44 of the Consumer Protection Act. We direct all state secretaries to notify the Rules in two weeks from today;2. States are still dilly-dallying notifying the Rules. If Rules are not notified in two weeks, then model Rules made by Centre will automatically apply for the respective Commission;3. In view of the large number of vacancies, we direct that all existing and potential vacancies be advertised if not done so within two weeks;4. It appears some states and UTs have not set up selection committees. The states are directed to set up such committees within four weeks from today;5. All vacancies in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions should be filled by all 30 states and UTs within a maximum period of 8 weeks from today..(Read Order)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the Central government should not make false promises with regard to filling up the vacancies in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). .Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noted that there are three vacancies in the NCDRC and directed the government to fill up the same within 8 weeks.Pertinently, the Court also ordered the government to conduct a legislative impact study of the Consumer Protection Act within 4 weeks. When the Central government lawyer submitted that the same is too short a time period to conduct such a study, the Court remarked that the government has been churning out laws within very short time periods and hence impact of laws can also be studied within such short duration."You are making legislations instantly. You are rushing through other things you can rush through this too. Now at least focus on the post requisites," the Court said. The Court was hearing a suo motu case regarding vacancies in NCDRC and SCDRCs. .When Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, appearing on behalf of the Central government, mentioned that terms of appointment is as per the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, the Bench stated that "when one has will to do something, then there is no confusion.".Amicus Curiae Aditya Narain informed the bench that out of seven, four vacancies have been filled, and three are remaining. "If you can appoint four then why not remaining three," the Court asked the government..When ASG Lekhi stated that he will ask Government to make the appointments at the earliest, the top court said,"Don't create hopes if you are unwilling to fulfill the aspirations. Consumers get no redressal. You have to have requisite number of people to deal with the cases.".The Court also said that the Centre should not get more time than States to fill up vacancies. ."We are informed that there are three vacancies in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission now. There is no reason why centre should get more time than States. The schedule laid above for states applies equally to the central government," the Bench ordered. .Supreme Court has today directed that to ensure that all the all its directions are complied with, the concerned Chief Secretaries of the States will have to attend court virtually in case of non-compliance within the time frame stipulated by top court. It has been clarified that the same would be the position for Union of India where the concerned Secretary would be the Secretary, Consumer Affairs will have to be present through virtual hearing in case of non-compliance..With reference to the Legislative Impact Study which the top court had asked the Centre to conduct in relation to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the bench was informed that such a study was not conducted and what would be needed now is a "post facto exercise."."You can just say it is not done. I have full sympathy for you since drawing information is a difficult task for the Govt. The answer is a no. You have not done. Once the legislative committee made these changes, what impact will it have on litigation is the study that should have been carried out. This is the irony of all legislation - you never do legislative impact study. It is a post facto analysis," observed the bench. .Supreme Court ordered the Centre to "at least" conduct a comprehensive legislative impact study after the legislation has been enacted and place a report before the top court within four weeks.."We are thus, of the view that at least now a comprehensive Legislative Impact Study should be done post the legislation as what has been done by writing a letter post facto is only about the pecuniary jurisdiction. It does not deal with the aspects referred to in para 5 of our order dated 22.02.2021 but is confined only to para 6. The Study should be undertaken and placed before us within four weeks" reads the order..The top court while elaborating on the need for the impact study states,"The legislative impact study was in the context that the new Act expanded the jurisdiction of the consumer forums which would result in the litigation shifting to the Consumer Tribunals apart from the aspect of the variation in the pecuniary jurisdiction by increasing the jurisdiction of the District and State forums. The latter would also again result in cases being transferred to these forums. Unfortunately, none of this was done before the Act came into force," reads the order..When ASG Lekhi said that four weeks was a short time period, the bench noted, "you are making legislations instantly. You are rushing through other things you can rush through this too. Now at least focus on the post requisites.".Supreme Court today also directed for vacancies in State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in all States and Union Territories (UTs) to be filled within a period of eight weeks..[BREAKING] All vacancies in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions to be filled within 8 weeks: Supreme Court."When legislature mandates, sanction or no sanction does not matter. We are not giving extensions. Enough time was given to set houses in order. Time will be fixed now," the Court said..The Court therefore, passed the following directions to States and UTs:1. Some of the States have not notified Rules under Section 44 of the Consumer Protection Act. We direct all state secretaries to notify the Rules in two weeks from today;2. States are still dilly-dallying notifying the Rules. If Rules are not notified in two weeks, then model Rules made by Centre will automatically apply for the respective Commission;3. In view of the large number of vacancies, we direct that all existing and potential vacancies be advertised if not done so within two weeks;4. It appears some states and UTs have not set up selection committees. The states are directed to set up such committees within four weeks from today;5. All vacancies in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions should be filled by all 30 states and UTs within a maximum period of 8 weeks from today..(Read Order)