HC stays Haryana Govt orders on consumer commission postings, seeks explanation for withdrawal of president’s security

During the hearing, Solath informed the court that the government, through a letter dated July 28, 2025, addressed to the additional director general of police, had withdrawn the security provided to Justice Mann under condition No 7 of his appointment letter. Taking the letter on record, the court directed the state to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for the withdrawal.

The order came in the backdrop of the petitioner’s allegation that the state government has been “interfering with the administrative functioning of the State Commission as well as in disciplinary proceedings” against officers of the State and District Commissions. The petition also accused the government of issuing “illegal and without jurisdiction” orders that have emboldened subordinate staff to disobey the president’s directions.

In its interim ruling, the court recorded the petitioner’s reliance on a December 2024 Division Bench decision in Gulab Singh vs State of Haryana, which had upheld the SCDRC president’s authority over transfers. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2016 judgment in State of UP vs All UP Consumer Protection Bar Association, Justice Sehgal reproduced the operative portion.

“Section 24B vests administrative control over the State Commissions in the President of the National Commission and over the district fora in the Presidents of the State Commissions. The extent of the administrative control shall be in all matters relating to the administrative functioning of the forum concerned, including but not limited to assignment of judicial and administrative work; posting, transfer and control over members; selection, appointment and disciplinary matters relating to the staff of the district fora and State Commissions…”

‘Absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction’

The court’s interim relief restrains the state from implementing its July 21 order, which had blocked the transfer of Dr Rekha Chaudhary, member of the Panipat District Consumer Commission, to Jind, as well as its August 1 order cancelling the deputation of a deputy superintendent facing disciplinary proceedings to Yamunanagar.

The state blocked Dr Rekha Chaudhary’s transfer from Panipat to Jind on July 7 on July 21. “The order dated 21.07.2025 is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction,” the petition stated.

The petition provided detailed instances of alleged interference. One involves the January 20 transfer order, swapping the presidents of the Palwal and Ambala District Consumer Commissions, which the SCDRC president countermanded on January 27. That order, the petition noted, was stayed by the High Court on January 28 in a separate case, holding that “the administrative control of the District Commission lies with the Chairman, State Commission and only he has power to transfer the President & Members of District Consumer Commissions.”

A more serious confrontation, according to the petitioner, occurred on June 16, when a deputy superintendent, identified as Gaurav, allegedly “misbehaved with the President of the State Commission… in the presence of members and other officers,” took away records, and faced a chargesheet. The president appointed an inquiry officer, but on July 9, the state stayed the inquiry. “It is apparent that Sh. Gaurav is having high political links and influencing the enquiry proceedings by getting unlawful orders,” the petition alleged.

The petition also drew parallels with a similar dispute in Himachal Pradesh, where the High Court quashed a government notification empowering the state to appoint the SCDRC registrar from the administrative service cadre, ruling instead that the commission president had the power to appoint and discipline such officers. It further pointed to a March 14, 2023, Supreme Court order in a suo motu writ petition, noting that most states had appointed presidents as disciplinary authorities and warning of personal appearances by secretaries if non-compliance persisted.

The petitioner contended that Haryana has shown “reluctance to comply” with these directions and has “outraged the autonomy of the State Consumer Commission,” making it difficult for the body to function “independently and efficiently.”

Issuing notice for September 18, the High Court will next consider the state’s affidavit on the withdrawal of Justice Mann’s security, and its stand on the administrative control issue, now backed by both precedent and apex court rulings.