Retired judges with "doubtful integrity" cannot be appointed as presidents of state consumer commissions and it is the prerogative of the judiciary to decide on the appointments, the Supreme Court has held.
Interpreting Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, the apex court said the legislation imposes a limitation on the power of both the State as also the Chief Justice in the matter of appointments.
"The facts relevant for such an appointment must be placed before both the statutory authorities. One of such fact is that an additional judge, for one reason or the other was found not fit to be made permanent or to be given an extension of his tenure. Indisputably, a person having doubtful integrity should neither be recommended by the high court nor appointed by the state government," the apex court observed.
The court passed the observation in a judgement while upholding the Madras High Court's decision to quash the appointment of N Kannadasan as president of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission.
Kannadasan, who retired as an additional judge of the Madras High Court, was made president of the State Consumer Commission by the state government on July 26, 2008.
His appointment was challenged in the high court by some persons on the ground that he was not confirmed as a permanent judge due to his alleged doubtful integrity and hence his appointment was improper.
The high court quashed his appointment by taking the view that it was "vitiated" as his services while working as an additional judge was not confirmed on the basis of allegations touching upon his integrity and honesty.
The appointments were made by the state government on the basis of a panel of three names forwarded by the chief justice of the high court.
Interpreting the Consumer Protection Act, further, the apex court said the power to appoint presidents of the state consumer commissions vested exclusively with the chief justices of the respective high courts and the state governments have no say in such matters.
According to the apex court if the states are granted a choice to make an appointment out of a panel it would erode the primacy of the chief justice.
In Kannadasan's case, ironically, the chief justice of the high court had forwarded a panel of three names, from which the state government picked Kannadasan for the post.
Such a policy of forwarding the names to the state government was violative of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, which gave primacy to the chief justice and his collegium alone to make the appointment which cannot be questioned by the state, the apex court said.
"For the said purpose only one name must emanate from the chief justice; only one name can be recommended by him and not a panel of names. Having regard to the processual mandate required for the purpose of appointment to the post of president, state commission, the executive government of the state cannot have any say whatsoever, in the matter," the bench said.
Hence the apex court felt that there was no merit in the special leave petition filed by Kannadasan challenging the high court's decision to quash his appointment.
