2005 (1) TMI 675 - SC - Indian Laws

Former police officer ineligible for NHRC appointment under Protection of Human Rights Act, emphasizing expertise over investigation skills.

PEOPLE's UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES Versus U.O.I. & ANR

The Court held that a former police officer is ineligible for appointment to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) under Section 3(2)(d) of the ... Whether a former member of the Police force is eligible to become a member of NHRC [National Human Rights Commission]? Issues Involved:1. Eligibility of a former police officer to become a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) under Section 3(2)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.2. Validity of the appointment process under Section 4 of the Act, including the requirement of effective consultation with the Committee members.3. Necessity of consultation with the Chairperson of NHRC for the appointment of members.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility of a Former Police Officer under Section 3(2)(d)The primary issue was whether a former member of the police force qualifies for appointment to NHRC under Section 3(2)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Act stipulates that members should have 'knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights.' The Court emphasized that the expertise in investigation and crime prevention, typically associated with police officers, does not equate to the knowledge or practical experience in human rights protection as required by the Act. The Court cited the Paris Principles, which emphasize independence, autonomy, and pluralism in the composition of national human rights institutions. Given the frequent involvement of police forces in human rights violations, the Court held that appointing a former police officer could undermine public confidence in NHRC's impartiality. Thus, the Court concluded that a police officer is ineligible for appointment under Section 3(2)(d).2. Validity of the Appointment Process under Section 4The appointment process for NHRC members requires recommendations from a high-powered Committee. In this case, the Committee's recommendation was challenged due to the absence of effective consultation with all members, particularly the Leader of Opposition in the Council of States, who was hospitalized and could not attend the meeting. The Court noted that the statutory requirement is for 'recommendation' rather than 'consultation,' and since notice was duly given, the process was not vitiated by his absence. However, the Court emphasized the need for complete disclosure of relevant factors to ensure meaningful recommendations, noting that the Committee was not informed of the Chairperson's earlier opposition to similar appointments.3. Necessity of Consultation with the Chairperson of NHRCWhile the Act does not mandate consultation with the Chairperson of NHRC for member appointments, the Court highlighted the importance of such a practice. Given the Chairperson's expertise and the Commission's significant public role, the Court suggested that the Central Government should consider establishing a convention of consulting the Chairperson and placing their opinion before the Committee. This would enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the appointment process. The Court also noted that the Commission had previously recommended amending the Act to include mandatory consultation with the Chairperson, urging the Government to expedite this consideration.ConclusionThe Court declared the appointment of the former police officer as a member of NHRC null and void, emphasizing that the expertise required under Section 3(2)(d) pertains to human rights protection, not investigation. The appointment process was upheld despite the absence of one Committee member, but the Court recommended developing a convention for consulting the NHRC Chairperson. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining public confidence in the impartiality and credibility of human rights institutions.