Shri Ashok Tanwar&Anr.; vs State Of H.P.&Ors.;

The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, concerning the appointment of the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Court held that consultation with an Acting Chief Justice does not satisfy the requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice as mandated by Articles 217 and 223 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the matter was referred to a larger bench for further deliberation, as it involved significant constitutional interpretation under Article 145(3).