New Delhi, August 30, 2025:

 

A review petition has been moved before the Supreme Court challenging its landmark judgment dated May 21, 2025, in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Others vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Others, which had issued sweeping directions on the eligibility, appointment, selection, and tenure of Presidents and Members of State and District Consumer Commissions.

 

In that judgment, the apex court had accepted the Union Government’s proposal that only serving or retired District Judges would henceforth be eligible to be appointed as Presidents of District Consumer Commissions, replacing the earlier criterion of persons “qualified to be a District Judge.” The earlier rule allowed practicing advocates with a minimum of seven years’ experience to be considered for the post.

 

The review petition, filed by Kerala-based NGO Parivarthan through Advocate-on-Record Jose Abraham, argues that the restriction unjustly excludes experienced advocates from eligibility, despite their recognition under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which permits appointment of an advocate with seven years’ practice as a District Judge.

 

According to the petitioner, the Court’s direction “creates an unreasonable and arbitrary classification” by eliminating a pool of competent legal professionals, thereby narrowing the field of eligible candidates without any rational basis. “By removing the earlier criteria of ‘qualified to be a District Judge,’ the judgment has excluded advocates who would otherwise be constitutionally eligible to hold such judicial office, without offering any supporting analysis or reasoning,” the petition asserts.

 

The NGO has also challenged another direction in the judgment, which mandates that non-judicial members seeking reappointment must undergo written examinations. This requirement, it contends, is disproportionate and disruptive, creating unnecessary hurdles and undermining continuity in the functioning of consumer forums.

 

On the constitutional plane, the petition makes a broader argument: while the Supreme Court is empowered under Article 142 to pass wide-ranging orders to do complete justice, it cannot substitute legislative or executive functions by prescribing substantive qualifications for statutory posts. The directions issued, according to the petitioner, amount to judicial overreach into the legislative domain, thereby undermining the principle of separation of powers and setting a potentially unhealthy precedent.

 

The petition stresses that consumer commissions were envisioned as quasi-judicial, accessible, and representative bodies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with diverse participation from both judicial and non-judicial backgrounds. Narrowing eligibility only to the judicial cadre could, it warns, dilute the pluralistic intent of the legislation and reduce opportunities for competent advocates who bring a consumer-centric perspective.

 

Seeking reconsideration, Parivarthan has urged the Supreme Court to modify or recall its directions, thereby restoring the earlier, more inclusive eligibility framework. This, it argues, would better serve the objectives of consumer protection law, maintain institutional balance, and ensure that judicial directions do not encroach upon the prerogatives of the legislature or executive.

 

The review petition has been registered as:

 

The matter is likely to come up for hearing before a bench of the Supreme Court in due course.