Santosh Hegde, J. - (1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging a decision of the first respondent Union of India appointing the respondent No.2 as a member of the National Human Rights Commission (the Commission). The primary basis of the challenge to his appointment is on the ground that prior to the impugned appointment the second respondent was holding the post of Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and was also holding the post of Vice-President (Asia) Interpol. According to the petitioner, the appointment of a person who served in the police force as a Member of the N.H.R.C. is contrary to the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, (the Act), apart from being opposed to the very aims and objects for which the said Commission was constituted. The petitioner urges that such appointment would undermine the status and international recognition of the Commission as an institution for protection of human rights. It is also urged that the appointment of the second respondent is also opposed to the Constitution of India on the grounds that is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. It is submitted that it is also violative of international covenants. For this purpose the petitioner has heavily relied on the principles laid down in the meeting of representatives of the national institutions in Paris wherein certain principles were evolved in regard to protection of human rights which principles came to be known as "Paris Principles". According to the petitioner, these principles were subsequently endorsed by the U.N. Commission of Human Rights and the U.N. General Assembly. The petitioner further contends that the U.N. Resolution dated 19-12-1993 concerning national institutions for protection of human rights, the compliance of the Paris Principles has become mandatory and since the Paris Principles prohibited the appointment of a civil servant like a Police Officer to such a Commission, such appointment of the second respondent would send wrong signals to the international community as well as to the United Nations. The petitioner also urges that the appointment of the second respondent has been made without consulting the Chairperson of the Commission which was the practice since the inception of the Commission. It is also urged that such appointment would have a direct impact on the effective implementation of human rights and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution including the right to life under Article 21. According to the petitioner, under Section 3(2)(d) of the Act, two members of the Commission should have knowledge of, and practical experience in matters relating to human rights; which definition has been defined under section 2(d) of the Act to mean :"Human Rights means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual granted by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India."
(2.) According to the petitioner, a person who headed a prosecution agency cannot be taken as a person who has knowledge of, or practical experience in matters relating to human rights. The petitioner also urges that the appointment of second respondent as a member of the Commission could lead to potential conflict of interest between the CBI and the Commission as the Commission is often called upon to decide on complaints of violation of fundamental rights by the CBI and also the police. According to the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No.2 destroys the independence of the Commission.
(3.) The first respondent, Union of India, in its counter opposed the writ petition contending that the appointment of the second respondent as a Member of the Commission is in accordance with the Act and the second respondent is qualified to be a member of the Commission under the Act. The first respondent contends that the composition of the Commission is provided under section 3(2)(d) of the Act which provides that a person having knowledge of and practical experience in matters relating to human rights is eligible for such appointment. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is a distinguished Officer of the Indian Police Service, having retired as the Director of CBI. It is submitted that in the course of his career between 1966 and 2003, he has had occasions to supervise the investigation and prosecution of several offences including the serious offences against human rights. As an example the first respondent has stated that as the Director of CBI, the second respondent was responsible for investigating the Punjab mass cremation cases and the Gujarat riot cases; both of which involved serious violation of human rights. It was also submitted that an institution, the CBI is often entrusted by this Court to conduct inquiries into sensitive matters where violation of human rights is involved and the second respondent has been a part of such investigations. It is also pointed out by the learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India that the petition does not make any personal allegation against the second respondent as to any act of violation of human rights either by him personally or as being party to such violation. It is also submitted that the second respondent as the Vice-President (Asia) Interpol has been involved in developing mechanism in Police cooperation and prosecution of crimes across borders including terrorism, human safety and human trafficking which are all offences against human rights. The first respondent has submitted that there is no illegality in appointing an Officer of the Indian Police Service as a member of the Commission. It is further stated that on the contrary, very often during the course of their careers Police Officers garner vast practical experience in Police methodology, investigative techniques and other practical matters relating to human rights enforcement. It is submitted that such experience would, inter alia, aid the Commission in identifying the areas of Police malpratices and the Commission will be also to look behind the causes of cover-up and attempts to shield the guilty Police Officers.;