Kerala Consumer Commission Bars Ex-President from Legal Practice Citing Service Rules
Kerala Consumer Commission Bars Ex-President from Practice

Kerala Consumer Commission Enforces Rule to Bar Former District President from Legal Practice

In a significant ruling from Thiruvananthapuram, the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has taken a firm stance by preventing a former district commission president from practising before the State Commission. This decision underscores the strict enforcement of service conditions under consumer protection laws.

Invocation of Rule 11920 Leads to Prohibition

The commission, led by President B Sudheendra Kumar, cited Rule 11920 of the Consumer Protection (Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Model Rules 2020. This rule explicitly prohibits a president or former member of a panel from practising before the National Commission, State Commission, or District Commission after retirement from service.

When Satheeshchandran, the former president of the Pathanamthitta district commission forum, attempted to appear for clients in a case before the State Commission, the commission invoked this rule to deny him permission. The move highlights the commission's commitment to upholding the integrity and impartiality of consumer dispute resolution mechanisms.

Details of the Service Conditions and Their Implications

The service conditions for district forum presidents are designed to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure fairness in proceedings. According to these rules:

  • A former president or member cannot represent clients before any consumer commission after retirement.
  • This prohibition applies uniformly across the National, State, and District Commissions.
  • The rule aims to maintain the credibility of the consumer redressal system by avoiding any perception of bias.

By enforcing this rule, the Kerala State Commission sets a precedent for other states to follow, reinforcing the importance of ethical standards in consumer protection bodies. This case serves as a reminder to all former officials about the legal boundaries post-retirement.