State governments bear a mandatory constitutional and statutory duty to appoint members to district consumer commissions within a fixed timeframe, and failure to do so violates consumers' right to speedy redressal under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Aaj ki is legal awareness debate ka motion hai — 'State Governments Must Fill All District Consumer Commission Vacancies Within Six Months.' Yeh sawaal seedha us aam naagrik ko prabhavit karta hai jo apni consumer shikayat leke in commissions ka darwaza khatkhatata hai, aur khali kursiyan usse insaaf se mehroom kar deti hain. Counsel Aarav, aap pehle apna paksh rakhein.
My lord, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ka Section 28(2) — jo ki State Government par ek STATUTORY OBLIGATION daalti hai — saaf kehta hai ki har district mein District Commission 'shall' establish ki jaayegi aur usmein President aur kam se kam do Members HONGE. Yeh 'shall' discretionary nahi, mandatory hai — aur vacancy ko months tak bhari na chhodna is mandate ka direct ullaghna hai. Isliye main maanta hoon ki is motion ka paksh lena na sirf naitik zaroorat hai, balki ek constitutional-statutory zimmedari hai jo State Government par bindhan (binding) hai.
Ref: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 28-2
My lord, paksh ki poori dalil ek fundamental oversight par tiki hai — Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ka Section 32(2) specifically yeh provision deta hai ki vacancy ki sthiti mein State Government kisi doosre District Commission ko us district ka jurisdiction exercise karne ka nirdesh de sakti hai, toh system band nahi hota. Aur Section 64 saaf kehta hai ki vacancy ke karan koi bhi proceeding invalidate nahi hogi — toh yeh 'chhah mahine ki hard deadline' ki maang hi ek artificial urgency hai jo kanoon ne khud resolve kar di hai. Main maanti hoon ki vacancies undesirable hain, lekin ek rigid constitutional mandate thopna, jab Act ne khud alternate mechanism diya hai, State ki administrative reality se aankhein moondna hai.
Ref: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 32-2; Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 64
My Lord, vipaksh Section 64 ka sahara lekar yeh kehne ki koshish kar raha hai ki vacancy hone par bhi proceedings valid hain — lekin yeh Section 64 ka poora galat istemal hai. Section 64 ek procedural safeguard hai, iska matlab yeh nahi ki State Government khali kursiyan bhari nahi chhodne de sakti aur phir us kamzori ko is section ki aad mein chhupa le. My Lord, Section 28(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 State Government par ek MANDATORY dayitva dalta hai ki District Commission mein President aur kam se kam do Members hone hi chahiye — yeh discretionary nahi, yeh statutory obligation hai, aur agar State Government yeh obligation puri nahi karti to Section 64 unhe is zimmedari se exemption nahi deta, balki yeh motion exactly isi statutory default ko time-bound remedy ke saath correct karne ki maang karta hai.
Ref: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 28-2; Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 64
My lord, paksh ki poori dalil Section 64 ke us ek provision par tiki hai jo kehta hai ki vacancy se orders invalid nahi hote — lekin yeh ek procedural safety-net hai, ek permanent excuse nahi. Section 28(2) ne State Government par ek affirmative constitutional obligation daala hai ki 'each district' mein District Commission 'shall' establish karo — yeh discretionary nahi, mandatory hai. Aur Section 32(2) ka jo substitute-arrangement wala provision hai, woh bhi ek aapatkaaleen upay hai jo State Government ko regular appointments ki zimmedari se mukta nahi karta — is liye main maanti hoon ki six-month ka mandatory timeline bilkul zaroori aur justified hai.
Ref: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 28-2; Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 32-2; Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 64
Petitioner ki taraf ne kaha ki State ka samvidhanik dayitva hai — Section 28(2) ke tahat har district mein District Commission sthaapit karna aur usse poornatah bhara rakhna zaroori hai, aur khali seaten logon ko unka consumer justice se vanchit karti hain. Prativaadi ki taraf ne kaha ki Section 64 ke tahat vacancies se orders aur karravahi anivarya nahi hoti, aur Section 32(2) ek practical alternative provision hai jisme ek Commission doosre district ka bhi kaam dekh sakti hai — isliye rigid six-month mandate zaroori nahi. Nyaya ki suggestion yeh hai: State Governments ko Section 28(2) ke mandate ko samman dete hue ek structured, time-bound vacancy-filling calendar banana chahiye — chahe six months ya uss se kam — kyunki Section 32(2) ka stopgap mechanism permanent solution nahi, sirf emergency rai hai, aur consumer justice mein deri aam naagrik ka maulik adhikar khatam karti hai. Ab aap sab is motion ko apne hisaab se rate karein!
Ref: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 28-2; Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 32-2; Consumer Protection Act, 2019 · Section 64