<p>The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its anguish over delay in appointment of presidents and members in consumer fora, saying the government can do away with those if it is not keen for them to function.</p>.<p>"If the government does not want then abolish the Act. We are stretching our jurisdictions to see the vacancies are filled in. It is unfortunate that judiciary is called upon to look into this issue. This is not a very happy situation," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M M Sundresh said.</p>.<p>Taking up a suo motu matter, the bench said its directions issued on August 11 for filling up vacancies in consumer courts should be complied with.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, acting as amicus curiae pointed out that the Bombay High Court had struck down Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of Recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and member of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020.</p>.<p>As Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi submitted that Centre as well as the Maharashtra government were in the process of filing an appeal, the court clarified the HC's judgement would not impede the process of appointments.</p>.<p>The court asked states to provide details of infrastructure available to consumer fora to the amicus curiae within a week, failing which concerned secretary would be personally present before it.</p>.<p>The bench fixed the matter for further consideration on November 10.</p>.<p>On August 11, the top court had pulled up the states for "defeating the laws enacted for the benefits of people," as it directed them to fill up around 800 vacancies in consumer courts across the country within eight weeks.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its anguish over delay in appointment of presidents and members in consumer fora, saying the government can do away with those if it is not keen for them to function.</p>.<p>"If the government does not want then abolish the Act. We are stretching our jurisdictions to see the vacancies are filled in. It is unfortunate that judiciary is called upon to look into this issue. This is not a very happy situation," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M M Sundresh said.</p>.<p>Taking up a suo motu matter, the bench said its directions issued on August 11 for filling up vacancies in consumer courts should be complied with.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, acting as amicus curiae pointed out that the Bombay High Court had struck down Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of Recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and member of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020.</p>.<p>As Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi submitted that Centre as well as the Maharashtra government were in the process of filing an appeal, the court clarified the HC's judgement would not impede the process of appointments.</p>.<p>The court asked states to provide details of infrastructure available to consumer fora to the amicus curiae within a week, failing which concerned secretary would be personally present before it.</p>.<p>The bench fixed the matter for further consideration on November 10.</p>.<p>On August 11, the top court had pulled up the states for "defeating the laws enacted for the benefits of people," as it directed them to fill up around 800 vacancies in consumer courts across the country within eight weeks.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>
