Review Petition Filed Against Supreme Court Direction That Only District Judges Can Head District Consumer Commissions

A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated May 21, 2025, in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Others vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Others in which directions were issued regarding the appointment, eligibility, selection, and tenure of Presidents and Members of State and District Consumer Commissions.

One important direction issued in the judgment was that only serving or retired District Judges can be the President of District Consumer Commissions. The Union Government was directed to frame new rules under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in terms of the directions.

The Court accepted the suggestion made by the Union that only serving or retired District Judges can head the District Commissions.  As per the earlier rule, a person who is 'qualified to be a District Judge' was also eligible for being appointed as the President of the District Commission, which meant that an Advocate with a minimum practice of 7 years could be considered.

In its Review Petition, filed by a Kerala-based NGO 'Parivarthan' has argued that restricting eligibility for the post of District Commission President exclusively to serving or retired District Judges results in the exclusion of experienced advocates, who are otherwise eligible under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.

"By removing the earlier criteria of “qualified to be a District Judge,” the judgment has excluded experienced advocates who would otherwise be eligible to hold the post of District Judge, thereby creating an unreasonable classification unsupported by any analysis or reasoning in the judgment," argued the petitioner.

It has also challenged the requirement of mandatory written examinations for the reappointment of non-judicial members, terming it disproportionate and disruptive to continuity in office.

The petition further contends that while Article 142 vests wide powers in the Supreme Court, it does not authorize the Court to prescribe substantive qualifications or direct the Union Government to legislate in strict adherence to judicial directions. Such directions, it submits, intrude into the legislative domain, compromise the principle of separation of powers, and risk creating an unhealthy constitutional precedent.

Emphasizing that judicial directions cannot substitute legislative or executive functions, Parivarthan has urged the Court to reconsider and modify the directions in order to uphold constitutional propriety, preserve institutional balance, and ensure that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is implemented in accordance with its objectives.

The review petition has been filed through AoR Jose Abraham.

Case : PARIVARTHAN Vs. GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO SELUKAR AND ORS|  Diary Number 49239/2025 .