The Court struck down Rule 6(9) that conferred power upon the Selection Committee to determine its own procedure for selection of President and Members of the District and State Commission. The court referred to the case of All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association (2018) 2 SCC 225 and held that it would lead to wide variation in standards as well as a great deal of subjective, bureaucratic and political interference, and finally it will result in denial of justice which will be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules of 2020 prescribing a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Commission, are unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court relied on Madras Bar Association v UOI , ( 2021 ) SCC Online SC 463  2020 [W.P. (Civil) No. 502 of 2021 dt. 14 -7 -2021 ]   whereby the Supreme Court held that Advocates with at least 10 years of experience at the bar eligible for appointment as Members in Tribunals. The court quashed the vacancy notice inviting applications for the post of Members of the State Commission and President and Members of the District Commission. The Union of India was directed to provide new Rules that substitute for the old Rules within four weeks from the date of the judgment and order. (WP No 10096 of 2021 dt .14-9 -2021 )