Holding

The initiation of consultation with the Chief Justice under Section 16(1)(a) must follow the procedure laid down in Ashish Handa, and Section 16(1A) applies only to appointments of members under clause (b), not to the President.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the procedure for appointing the President of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically the requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Court also considered whether the amendment introducing Section 16(1A) applied to the President’s appointment. Relying on earlier decisions (Ashish Handa, Ashok Tanwar, and Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association), the Court held that the executive must initiate the proposal by approaching the Chief Justice, and that Section 16(1A) governs only the appointment of members under clause (b), not the President. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was affirmed and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The correct manner of initiating the proposal for consultation with the Chief Justice under Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Whether Section 16(1A) of the Act applies to the appointment of the President of a State Consumer Commission.
Whether a selection committee of two State Secretaries can appoint the President, affecting judicial independence.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 16(1)(a), s. 16(1A), s. 16(1)(b)

Subjects

Consumer Protection ActState Consumer Commissionconsultation with Chief Justicejudicial independencestatutory interpretationselection committee

Judgment

A STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
v.
NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP AND ORS. -
MAY 4, 2005

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 :

Section /6(1)(a), proviso [As amended by Amendment Act 50of1993]-
c President of the State Consumer Commission-Appointment of-Statutory
procedure-Requirement ofconsultation with ChiefJustice ofthe High Court- ~

Held: Manner of initiation ofproposal for consultation with the Chief Justice
under S.16(l)(a) must take place as laid down in Ashish Handa's case.

Section 16(l)(a), proviso [As amended by Amendment Act 50of1993],
D 16(JA)[as inserted by Amendment Act 62 of 2002] & 16(l)(b)-President of
the State Consumer Commission-Appointment of-Held: Procedure
contemplated under S.16(1 A) cannot apply in respect thereof-If Selection
Committee comprising of two Secretaries of the State Government under
S.16(1 A) were to select President, it would be destructive of judicial
E independence-Procedure under S.16(1 A) can only apply in respect of
appointment of members falling under S.16(l)(b).

Questions pertaining to the content of statutory consultation
postulated under Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
with the Chief Justice of State High Court for appointment of the President
F of the State Consumer Commission, and the import of amendment in the
Act by introduction of Section 16(1A), arose for consideration in the
present appeals.

In an earlier decision in Ashish Randa, this Court had held that it is
the Chief Justice of the High Court, who should initiate the process in the
G matter of appointment of a Judge, sitting or retired, as ·President of the
State Commission.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court -"

~
HELD: 1.1. In the case of Ashok Tanwar, the Constitution Bench of
H 1158
STATE v.. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP 1159
this Court had occasion to consider the issue of "consultation with the A
> Chief Justice of High Court" under Section 16 of the Act. The Constitution
Bench specifically overruled the decision in Ashish Handa only on this issue
holding that the process and context of"consultation with the Chief Justice
Of the State High Court" within the meaning of Section 16(l)(a) is not to
be equated with the consultation contemplated under Article 217 of the
Constitution for appointment of a High Court Judge. The Constitution .B
Bench pointed out that, though the process may be similar in several other.
aspects, the two consultations cannot be held to be qualitatively identical
as one was for appointment to a statutory post, whi!e the other was a
Constitutional appointment. It was also held that the requirement of
consultation with two senior-most Judges of the High Court could not be c
read into the consultation required under Section 16 (IA) for appointment
of the Chairman of the State Commission, and that consultation with the
Chief Justice of the High Court was sufficient. Although overruling Ashish
Handa on this aspect of the matter, the Constitution Bench referred with
approval to the said judgment. Thus, the Constitution Bench differed from
Ashish Handa only on the issue of whether consultation with the Chief D
Justice meant consultation with the collegium of the High Court. In other
respects, Ashish Handa was approved.
11166-G; 1167-A, C, D, E; 1168-A-BJ

1.2. The manner of initiation of proposal has thus remained the same
throughout and it is not open for this Court to take a different view of
E
the matter. The law is quite settled and is binding. Thus, the manner of
initiation of proposal for a consultation with the Chief Justice under
Section 16(l)(a) of the Act must take place in the manner as laid down by
the judgment of this Court in Ashish Handa's case. 11168-E, Fl
F
Ashok Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Himacha/ Pradesh and Ors., 120051
2 sec 104, followed.

Ashish Handa v. Hon 'ble the ChiefJustice of High Court ofPunjab and
Haryana and Ors., 119961 3 SCC 145 and Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Association v. Union of India, 1199314 SCC 441, referred to. G
2.1. A literal reading of sub-section (IA) of Section 16 may prima
facie suggest that appointments under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section
(1) are also governed by the procedure contemplated therein, under sub-
section (IA), but the two sub-sections have to be harmoniously construed.
The procedure contemplated under sub-section (IA) can apply only in H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A respect of appointment of members falling within the contemplation of
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16. (1169-G, HJ

2.2. It is inconceivable that sub-section (IA) of Section 16 is intended
for appointment of the President of the State Commission itself. In the
first place, the contention that the Chairman of the State Commission, who
B is or has been a Judge of the High Court, can be selected by a Selection
Committee comprising two Secretaries of the State Government, cannot
be accepted. Nothing could be more erosive of judicial independence than
such interpretation of sub-section (I A). This conclusion is driven home by
the proviso to sub-section (lA). This proviso is intended to take care of a
C contingency where there exists a President of the State Commission, \vho
i~· unable to chair the Selection Committee meeting bec~use of his/her
absence or other similar reasons. It is only in such a situation, that the
State Government may request the Chief Justice of the High Court to
nominate a sitting Judge to act as Chairman of the Selection Comn_littee.
(1169-B, C, D, E)
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3044-3045
of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.2004 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 174/2004 and C.W.P. No. 17262 of2003.
E Shanti Bhushan, Neeraj Kumar Jain and Ms. Kavita Wadia with him
for the Appellants.

f\1.N. Krishnanmani, Mrs.Varona Bhandari Gugnani, Shreekant N.
Terdal, A. Mariarputham and Ms. Aruna Mathurwith him for the Respondents.

F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. Leave granted.

What is the content of the statutory consultation with the Chief Justice
of the High Court postulated unde~ Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection
G Act,· 1986, is the core issue subjected to debate before us in these two appeals.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') was brought into force on 24.12.1986. It is an Act "to provide for better
protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision
for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the
H settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith." The
STATE v. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP [B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.] 1161

... Act established fora at district level, state level and national level and laid A
down the procedure of appointing the members of the fora and their respective
Chainnen. The dispute pertains to the statutory procedure contemplated for
appointments of the Chainnan of the State Commission-the forum at tile
State level.

Section 16( I) provides for the composition of the State Commission B
including the appointment of the President and members of the State
Commission. As originally enacted, Section 16 read as under :

"16. Composition ofthe State Commission.-(1) Each State Commission
shall consist of-
c
(a) a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed .
by the State Government, who shall be its President,

(b) two other members who shall be persons of ability, integrity and
standing and have adequate knowledge or experience of, or have
shown capacity in dealing with, problems relating to economics, law, D
commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs and administration,
one of whom shall be a woman.

By (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993, which was retrospectively made ,
effective with effect from 18.6.1993, an amendment was made to Section 16.
by the addition of a proviso and the amended section read as under : E
"16. C:imposition ofthe State Commission.-(1) Each State Commission
shall consist of-

(a) a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed
by the State Government, who shall be its President: F
Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made
except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court;

(b) two other members who shall be persons of ability, integrity and
standing and have adequate knowledge or experience of, or have
shown capacity in dealing with, problems relating to economics, law,
o
commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs and administration,·
·-
one of whom shall be a woman:

Provided that every appointment made under this clause shall be
made by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection
H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A Committee consisting of the following namely:-

(i) President of the State Commission. -Chainnan

(ii) Secretary of the Law Department of the State. -Member

(iii) Secretary incharge of the Department dealing with
B
Consumer Affairs in the State. -Member

By a further amendment, vide (Amendment) Act, 62 of 2002, Section
16 (l)(b) was substituted by new provision of sub-sections (IA) and (IB)
which were inserted in Section 16. The amended Section 16, brought into
C force with effect from 15.3.2003, reads as under :

"16. Composition of the State Commission (I) Each State
Commission shall consist of-

(a) a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed
by the State Government, who shall be its President :
D
Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made
except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.

(b) not less than two, and not-more than such number of members,
as may be prescribed, and one of who shall b~ a woman, who shall
E have the following qualifications, namely :-

(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age;
(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university; and
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate
F knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with
problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy,
industry, public affairs or administration:

Provided that not more than fifty per cent. of the members shall
be from amongst persons having a judicial background.
G
Explanation ....

Provided further that .... ....:::

(a) ...

H. (b) ...
STATE v. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP [B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.] 1163

(c) .. . A
(d) .. .

(e) .. .

(t) .. .
B
(l-A) Every appointment under sub-section (l) shall be made by
- the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection
Committee consisting of the following members, namely :-

(i) President of the State Commission-Chairman;

(ii) Secretary of the Law Department of the State-Member;
c
(iii) Secretary incharge of the Department dealing with Consumer
Affairs in the State-Member :
,.,
Provided that where the President of the State Commission is, by
reason of absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chainnan of the D
Selection Committee, the State Government may refer the matter to
the Chief Justice of the High Court for nominating a sitting Judge of
that High Court to act as Chairman.

( l-B) (i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State
Commis_sion may bP, exercised by Benches thereof. E
(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more
members as the President may deem fit.
(iii) If the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the
points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority,
F
if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided,
they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and
make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point
or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or
points by one or more or the other members and such point or
points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority G
of the members who have heard the case, including those who
:::...
first heard it.

(2) The salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and
the other terms and conditions of service of, the members of the
State Commission shall be such as may be prescribed by the H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A State Government.
Provided that the appointment of a member on whole~time basis
shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation
of the President of the State Commission taking into c0nsideration
such factors as may be prescribed including the work load of
B the State Commission.
(3)
(4)

Justice Amarjeet Chaudhary, the then incumbent, was to demit his office
C on 4.9.2003 on completion of his term as President of the Haryana State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the
State Commission'). On 25.8.2003 the Chief Minister of Haryana addressed
a letter to the Chief Justice of Punjab & flaryana High Court drawing his
attention to the vacancy that was likely to arise on 5.9.2003, and expressed
his view that Justice R.S. Mongia, retired Chief Justice of Qauhati High
D Court, would be a befitting incumbent to be appointed to the said post and
requested for communication of the views of the Chief Justice of Punjab and
Haryana High Court. By a communication dated 26.8.2003, the ~hief Justice
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court drew the attention of the Chief Minister
to the decision of this Court in Ashish Honda v. Hon'ble the ChiefJustice of
E High Court of P~njab & Haryana and Ors. 1 and took the stand: " ...even for
initiation of the proposal...the executive is expected to approach the Chief
Justice when the appointment is to be made for taking the steps to initiate the
proposal, and the procedure followed should be the same as for appointment
of a High Court Judge. That would give greater credibility to the appointment
made." He, however, postponed a decision, as the seniormost Judge of the
F collegium was out of station. By a confidential communication dated
27.8.2003, the Chief Justice informed the Chief Minister that the collegium
of the High Court had met and considered the names of several persons, and
unanimously decided to recommend Justice R.C. Kathuria (retired) of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court as most suitable and fit for appointment as
G President of the State Commission. A copy of the relevant resolution was
forwarded for information. The resolution took note of the credentials of the
three retired Judges, whose suitability was considered, and decided to
recommend Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria as most suitable and fit for appointment.
Justice R.S .. Mongia was also one of the three retired Judges, whose suitability

H I. (1996) 3 SC c 145.
STATE v. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP [BN. SRIKRISHNA, J.] 1165

was considered by the said resolution. A
By a letter dated 29. I 0.2003 the Chief Minister, Haryana, raised certain
objections to the proposal made by the Chief Justice. The collegium of the
High Court considered the letter dated 29.10.2003 of the Chief Minister,
Haryana and reiterated its earlier recommendation. By a letter of 1.12.2003
the Chief Minister drew the attention of the Chief Justice to what he considered B
were the deficiencies in the candidature of the learned Judge, whose name
was proposed by the High Court. Once again, the High Court after calling for
several records and considering various other aspects of the matter reiterated
its stand that there was no reason to recall the earlier recommendations to
appoint Justice R.C. Kathuria (Retired) as the President of the State C
Commission. By another letter dated 7.1.2004, the Chief Minister of Haryana

... drew the attention of the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court to
the newly introduced Section 16(1A), vide (Amendment) Act 62 of 2002,
and stated that since the post of the President of the State Commission was
vacant at the moment, a Hon'b/e sitting Judge of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court was required to be nominated to act as Chairman of the Selection D
Committee to be constituted under Section 16(1A). There was certain other
correspondence about certain representations made, which is not material.

In response to a representation dated 22.12.2003 received from the
National Consumer Awareness Group, Respondent No. I, on 31.12.2003 the
Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, issued a clarificacion E
to all the State Governments/ U.T. Administration including the Government
of Haryana State inter alia opining, in substance, that the procedure
contemplated for constitution of a Selection Committee would be equally
applicable for appointment of the President of the State Commission, though
for that purpose the Chief Justice of the High Court be requested to nominate F
a sitting Judge of the High Court to act as Chairman of the Selection
Committee.

In the meanwhile, Civil Writ Petition No. 174/04 was filed by the first
respondent before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh invoking
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for a mandamus to the Union of India, G
the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, State of Haryana and

-- Department of Consumer Affairs, State of Haryana, to follow the procedure
as laid down in Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act in its letter and
spirit for the appointment of the President of the State Commission. Another
writ petition, C. W.P. No. 17262/03, which had been filed earlier by one H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A Dharminder Singh Rawat, Advocate, on the connected subject of initiation of
the proposal, was heard along with C. W.P. No. l 74/04 filed by the first
respondent. The High Court by a common judgment allowed the two writ
petitions and made appropriate directions to the State Government therein.
The High Court followed the decision of this Court in Ashish Randa (supra)
B which held the field at the material time. By taking the view that the process
of consultation contemplated under Section 16 (l)(a) of the Act was almost
identical to the process· of consultation required under Article 217 of the
Constitution, the High Court upheld the appointment of Justice M.R. Agnihotri,
a retired Judge of the High Court, as the President of the State Commission,
as communicated by the Registrar of the High Cot.rt to the Haryana
C Government on l0.6. l 994. Finding that there was substantial compliance
with Section l6(l)(a) of the Act, the appointment of Justice Agnihotri was
upheld and the writ petition challenging h_is appointment was dismissed. On
the question of interpretation of the newly introduced Section 16(lA), the -< t
High Court was of the view that there was no conflict between the provisions
of Sections l6{l)(a) and 16(lA) of the Act as they could effectively operate
D in their respective fields, which did not overlap. The High Court was further
of the view th;,it the provisions of Section l6(1A) would have hardly any,
much less an effective, role in the appointment of the President of the State
Commission in terms of Section l6(1)(a), and that the Selection Committee
contemplated by Section 16( l A) could not be utilized for the selection of the
E President for which a separate provision was made under Section 16(l)(a).
The writ petition was accordingly allowed and appropriate directions were
issued.

At the outset, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-State of Haryana submitted that the appeal was being pursued not
F so much for appointment or non-appointment of a particular incumbent - in
any event, time the great healer having solved the problem, but only for the
purpose of settling the question of interpretation to be placed on the provisions
of Sections 16(l)(a) and 16 (lA) of the Act.

In a recent judgment in Ashok Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Himachal
G Pradesh and Ors. 2, (to which both of us were parties), the Constitution Bench
of this Court had occasion to consider the issue of "consultation with the
Chief Justice of High Court" under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection
Act, I 986. The Constitution Bench specifically overruled the decision in

H 2. {2005) 2 SC c 104.
--
STATE v. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP [B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.) 1167

Ashish Handa (supra) only on this issue holding that the process and context A
"> of "consultation with the Chief Justice of the State High Court" within the
meaning of Section 16(1)(a) is not to be equated with the consultation
contemplated under Article 217 of the Constitution for appointment of a
High Court Judge, observing :

"It is thus clear that the expression "consultation" used in Article 217 B
- of the Constitution in relation to appointment of High Court Judges
cannot be read in the same way into "consultation" as contemplated
under Section 16 of the Act in the light of what is stated above in
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. 3 " (vide paragraph 19)

The Constitution Bench pointed out that, though the process may be C
similar in several other aspects, the two consultations cannot be held to be
qualitatively identical as one was for appointment to a statutory post, while
the other was a Constitutionalappointment. It was also held (vide paragraph
20) that the requirement of consultation with two senionnost Judges of the
High Court could not be read into the consultation required under Section 16 D
(IA) for appointment of the Chairman of the State Commission, and that
consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court was sufficient. Although
overruling Ashish Handa (supra) on this aspect of the matter, the Constitution
Bench referred with approval to the said judgment and said :

"In Ashish Handa (supra) this Court, having regard to what is stated E
above, held that it is the Chief Justice of the High Court, who should
initiate the process in the matter of appointment of a Judge, sitting or
retired, as President of the State Commission." (vide paragraph 21)

Finally, it concluded thus :
F
"Certain statements made by this Court in Ashish Handa (supra) in
para 3, give an impression that the Chief Justice of a High Court has
to consult his two senionnost colleagues before recommending a sitting
or retired Judge for appointment as President of a State Commission
as per Section 16 of the Act. In our view that is not the correct
position and we do not approve the same. To put it positively, we G
state that for the purpose of Section 16 of the Act, a Chief Justise of
a High Court need not consult his two semonnost colleagues in the
High Court for recommending a sitting or retired Judge of a High
. Court for appointment as President of a State Commission." (vide
3. (1993] 1 sec 441. H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A paragraph 22)

A careful reading of Ashok Tanwar (supra) shows that the Constitution '
Bench differed from Ashish Randa (supra) only on the issue whether
consultation with the Chief Justice meant consultation with the collegium of
the High Court. In other respects, Ashish Randa (supra) is approved.
B
Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellants, urged that even
with the interpretation of Section 16(l)(a), as decided by the Constitution
Bench in Ashok Tanwar (supra), it still leaves undecided the question as to
who should initiate the proposal for appointment to be made under Section
16(1 )(a). He contended that 'consultation' meant n1eeting of minds between
C two Constitutional authorities of equal rank and there was no reason why the
Chief Justice should not initiate the proposal. We are unable to accept this
contention. In the first place, the processual mechanics of 'consultation' was
decided in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (supra) judgment (
by a decision of nine learned Judges and reiterated in Ashish Randa (supra),
D with which the Constitution Bench in Ashok Tanwar (supra) did not disagree.
The 011Iy point of disagreement between Ashish Randa (supra) and Ashok
Tanwar (~upra) was on the issue whether the consultation with the Chief
Justice meant consultation with the collegium of the High Court. The manner
of initiation of proposal has remained same throughout and it is not open for
us to ta!ce a different view of the matter. Learned counsel attempted to pursuade
E us to refer the matter to a larger Bench. We decline to do so as the law is
quite settled;. it is binding on us and we agree with it. Thus, the manner of
initiation of proposal for a consultation with the Chief Justice under Section
16( l )(a) of the Act must take place .in the manner as laid down by the
judgment of this Court in Ashish Randa's case (supra).
F The next conteudous issue raised before us is with regard to the import
of the amendment in the Act by introduction of Section 16(1A). Shri M. N.
Krishnamani, learned counsel for the Union of India, sought to canvass the
interpretation given by Government oflndia (vide D.O. letter dated 31.12.2003)
that the provisions of Section 16(1A) may also be used for appointment of
G the President of the State Commission.

Learned counsel for the Union of India urged that sub-section (IA) of
Section 16 itself contemplates that every appointment made under sub-section
( l) of Section 16 has to be made on the recommendation of a Selection ...
Committee consisting of· (i) President of the State Commission as Chairman;
H (ii) Secretary of the Law Department of the State; and (iii) Secretary incharge
STATE 1•. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP [B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.] l J 69
,-

'
of the Department dealing with Consumer Affairs in the State as Members. A
He also emphasized the proviso to sub-section (IA) which has been added to
take care of the situation where the President of the State Commission is
absent, or otherwise unable to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee
in which case the State Government may request the Chief Justice of the
High Court to nominate a sitting Judge of that High Court to act as Chairman.
B
We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the
Union of India. It is inconceivable that sub-section (IA) .is intended for
appointment of the President of the State Commission itself. In the first
place, we cannot accede to the contention that the Chairman of the State
Commission, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court, can be selected
by a Selection Committee comprising two Secretaries of the State Government.
c
Nothing could be more erosive of judicial independence than such
,..\ interpretation of sub-section (IA). This conclusion of ours is driven home by
1
the 'proviso to sub-section (IA). This proviso is intended to take care of a
contingency where there exists a President of the State Commission, who is
unable to Chair the Selection Committee meeting because of absence or other D
similar reasons. It is only in such a situation, that the State Government may
request the Chief Justice of the High Court to nominate a sitting Judge to act
as Chairman of the Selection Committee. If the argument of the learned
counsel of the Union of India and the construction canvassed by him is
admitted, it would mean that even where the President of the State Commission
is appointed for the first time, the procedure would be that he would be
E
appointed by a Committee of which two Secretaries would be members. That
would be obviously destructive of judicial independence.

The learned counsel, alternatively, argued that the scheme contemplated
,,,... by sub-section (IA) is quite workable even in a situation where there exists F
already a President, but the question arises of his re-appointment which would
make him unable to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee. Jn such
cases, a sitting Judge of the High Court could be nominated by the Chief
Justice of the High Court to act as a Chairman. Even this argument does not
commend itself to us. A literal reading of sub-section (I A) may prima facie
suggest that appointments under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (I) are G
also governed by the procedure contemplated therein, under sub-section (IA),
...... but as rightly held by the High Court the two sub-sections have to be
~ harmoniously construed. The procedure contemplated under sub-section (IA)
can apply only in respect of appointment of members falling within the
contemplation of clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 16. In our view, the
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A High Court has given adequate .and justifiable reasons for this interpretation
with which we agree. The interpretation given by the circular, and the view
taken by the Union of India in the matter of Section 16( 1A), is incorrect and
we hold that the procedure contemplated therein applies only to the
appointments made under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16.

B ln our view, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment of the
High Court on both the counts. Seeing no merit in these appeals, we dismiss
the appeals.

No order as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.