The Gauhati High Court has stayed the recruitment process for a Non-Judicial Member of the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, citing a prima facie violation of Supreme Court directions regarding appointment rules. The interim order, issued by Justice Kaushik Goswami on August 8, 2026, came in response to a petition challenging the state’s selection procedure.

This judicial intervention underscores the critical need for states to adhere strictly to the apex court’s guidelines on appointments to consumer commissions, which are vital for ensuring timely and effective consumer justice. The stay directly impacts the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s ability to fill a key position, potentially affecting the resolution of consumer grievances across the state.

What was announced

The Gauhati High Court issued an interim order on August 8, 2026, staying the recruitment process for the post of Non-Judicial Member in the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Justice Kaushik Goswami passed the order in a writ petition, WP(C) 3663/2026, filed by Tutumoni Deva Goswami and others. The petitioners challenged an advertisement, bearing number 33/2025 and dated December 13, 2025, issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) for the said appointment, along with a subsequent notification published in The Assam Tribune on July 2, 2026.

The Court observed that the selection process appeared, prima facie, to have been initiated in breach of specific directions issued by the Supreme Court concerning the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. The High Court noted that while the Supreme Court had struck down Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the 2020 Rules and directed states to undertake recruitment only upon notification of fresh rules by the Union of India, no such new rules had been brought on record by the state.

The State of Assam, represented by Senior Advocate D. Majumdar, conceded that fresh rules had not yet been framed. However, the state argued that it had reconstituted the Selection Committee in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment, purportedly under the existing Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules. The High Court rejected this contention, reiterating that the apex court’s mandate was to conduct recruitment only after the Union of India notified new rules.

Why it matters

The stay on recruitment for a Non-Judicial Member is significant for the operational efficiency and integrity of the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. These commissions are quasi-judicial bodies established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, playing a crucial role in resolving disputes between consumers and service providers, sellers, or manufacturers. Non-judicial members bring diverse expertise from fields such as economics, law, public affairs, administration, commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health, or medicine, which is essential for comprehensive dispute resolution.

A vacancy in such a critical position can lead to delays in hearing and disposing of consumer complaints, thereby undermining the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which aims for accessible, affordable, and speedy justice. The State Commission handles consumer disputes with claims ranging from ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore, and also hears appeals against decisions of District Commissions. Any impediment to its full constitution can impact a substantial number of consumers seeking redressal for higher-value claims. Furthermore, the High Court’s decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring that government recruitment processes adhere to established legal frameworks and judicial pronouncements, preventing arbitrary or non-compliant appointments.

Background

The current legal challenge stems from a series of pronouncements by the Supreme Court of India aimed at standardising and improving the appointment process for members of consumer commissions across the country. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which replaced the 1986 Act, brought in new provisions for the establishment and functioning of these commissions. Subsequently, the Central Government notified the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020.

However, certain provisions of these 2020 Rules faced legal scrutiny. In a landmark judgment in The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors. (2023), the Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court decision that struck down Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the 2020 Rules. These rules pertained to the selection committee composition and the tenure of members, among other aspects. The apex court had specifically directed the Union of India to notify new rules within four months and, crucially, mandated that all states complete recruitment processes only under these fresh rules.

The Supreme Court had also clarified that a written examination followed by a viva voce would be required only for the appointment and reappointment of non-judicial members of the State Commission and members of the District Commission. This was part of a broader effort to ensure transparency, merit, and judicial independence in these quasi-judicial bodies. The latest order from the Gauhati High Court indicates that the Assam government initiated the recruitment process for a Non-Judicial Member without the notification of these fresh rules by the Union government, leading to the prima facie violation observed by the court.

Key details

The Gauhati High Court’s interim order specifically stayed the operation of the advertisement (No. 33/2025 dated December 13, 2025) issued by the Assam Public Service Commission and the subsequent notification published in The Assam Tribune on July 2, 2026. Justice Goswami’s bench noted that the Supreme Court’s earlier directions in the Ganesh Kumar Rajeswar Rao Selukar case (2025) had affirmed the striking down of Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. These specific rules govern aspects of the selection committee and the term of office for members.

The Supreme Court had explicitly directed that states must complete recruitment under new rules to be notified by the Union of India, within a period of four months from such notification. The Gauhati High Court found that, in the present case, no fresh rules had been brought on record, and the recruitment process was initiated under the 2020 Rules, despite the striking down of its key provisions.

The High Court also provided a protective measure for the petitioners in the case, Tutumoni Deva Goswami and others. It clarified that during the subsistence of the interim order, they would be permitted to continue as Members of their respective District Consumer Commissions. This continuance is subject to their attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders from the High Court, whichever occurs earlier. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 27, 2026.

What’s next

The matter is slated for further hearing before the Gauhati High Court on August 27, 2026. During this hearing, the court will likely review the state’s response to its observations and any developments regarding the notification of new rules by the Union Government. The Assam government will need to demonstrate its compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives or present a compelling argument for its current recruitment approach.

The Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs is expected to expedite the notification of the fresh rules for appointments to consumer commissions, as mandated by the Supreme Court. Until such new rules are in place, recruitment processes for Non-Judicial Members in state consumer commissions, including Assam’s, are likely to remain under judicial scrutiny. This ongoing legal process will determine the future course of appointments and the full constitution of the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Sources & References