The Supreme Court has noted that judges with “doubtful integrity” should not be appointed as heads of state consumer commissions while making it clear that it will be the judiciary’s prerogative to decide on the appointments.

“Indisputably, a person having doubtful integrity should neither be recommended by the high court nor appointed by the state government,” the apex court observed in a recent judgment.

Interpreting Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court said the legislation imposes a limitation on the power of both the state and the Chief Justice in the matter of appointments. It upheld the Madras High Court’s decision to quash the appointment of N Kannadasan as president of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission.

Kannadasan, who retired as an additional judge of the Madras High Court, was made president of the State Consumer Commission on July 26, 2008. His appointment was challenged in the high court on the grounds that he was not confirmed as a permanent judge due to his alleged doubtful integrity and hence his appointment was improper.

According to the Bench, such a policy of forwarding the names to the state Government was violative of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, which gave primacy to the chief justice and his collegium alone to make the appointment which could not be questioned by the state. “For the said purpose, only one name can be recommended by him and not a panel of names,” the Bench observed.