2005 (4) TMI 627 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appointment of a former police officer as a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
2. Alleged violation of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
3. Compliance with international covenants, specifically the Paris Principles.
4. Alleged arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Consultation process in the appointment procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Appointment of a Former Police Officer:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the second respondent, a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as a member of the NHRC, arguing that it contradicts the objectives of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and undermines the Commission's status. The Supreme Court held that neither the Act nor the Paris Principles expressly exclude police officers from being appointed to the NHRC. The Court emphasized that Section 3(2)(d) of the Act, which requires members to have knowledge or practical experience in human rights matters, does not exclude any class of persons, including police officers.

2. Alleged Violation of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993:
The petitioner argued that the appointment was contrary to Section 3(2)(d) of the Act, which requires members to have knowledge of or practical experience in human rights. The Court found that the second respondent, having supervised investigations involving serious human rights violations, possessed the requisite knowledge and experience. The Court ruled that the clear language of the statute does not permit an interpretation that excludes police officers.

3. Compliance with International Covenants (Paris Principles):
The petitioner relied on the Paris Principles, which were endorsed by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly, arguing that these principles prohibit the appointment of civil servants like police officers to the NHRC. The Supreme Court noted that the Paris Principles and the UN Resolution do not explicitly exclude police officers from such appointments. The Court further held that international declarations and resolutions cannot override the express provisions of the Act enacted by the Indian Parliament.

4. Alleged Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 14:
The petitioner contended that the appointment was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court, referencing the judgment in R.K. Jain v. Union of India, held that judicial review in appointments is limited to examining whether the appointee possesses the statutory qualifications. The Court found no violation of Article 14, as the second respondent met the statutory requirements under the Act.

5. Consultation Process in the Appointment Procedure:
The petitioner argued that the appointment was made without consulting the Chairperson of the NHRC, which was the practice since the Commission's inception. The Court held that the Act does not mandate consultation with the Chairperson for appointments. The Court also addressed the issue of proper consultation among the Selection Committee members, noting that the Act does not prescribe a quorum or specific procedure. The Court found that the non-response of one member due to hospitalization did not invalidate the decision of the other five members.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the appointment of the former police officer as a member of the NHRC. The Court ruled that the appointment was in accordance with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and that neither the Paris Principles nor the UN Resolution prohibit such appointments. The Court also found no violation of Article 14 or procedural irregularities in the appointment process.