http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  105 of 2004

PETITIONER: People’s Union for Civil Liberties                       

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Anr.                                            

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/01/2005

BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

       National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a high-powered  statutory body to act as an instrument for the protection and promotion of  human rights.  The credibility of such an institution depends upon high  degree of public confidence.  In the present case, the important question  that has been raised is whether a former member of the Police force is  eligible to become a member of NHRC.          NHRC has been set up under provisions of the Protection of Human  Rights Act, 1993 (for short ’the Act’).  Its composition is provided in Section  3(2) of the Act.  The question for consideration in this petition is about the  interpretation of Section 3(2) (d), which stipulates that the Commission  shall consist of two members to be appointed from amongst persons  having ’knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to  human rights’.  The fundamental question is whether a Police officer  would fall in the category stipulated under this provision and is  appointment of such a person consistent with the language of the section  and the true intendment of the Act.  For determining this fundamental  question, it is necessary to note, in brief, the background relating to the  concept of Human Rights, the provisions of the Act and the scheme  thereof.  First the facts which led to the filing of the petition may be briefly  noticed. A vacancy arose in NHRC in November 2003.  It was in respect of  the appointment to be made under Section 3(2) (d).  The second  respondent, a Police Officer, retired as Director of Central Bureau of  Investigation (CBI) in December 2003. Every appointment is required to be  made after obtaining the recommendations of a Committee as postulated  by Section 4 of the Act. The notice was sent to the Committee members on  13th February, 2004, convening  a meeting for 19th February, 2004.  It  seems that on 19th February, the Home Secretary spoke to the Joint  Secretary to the Leader of Opposition who informed him that the Leader of  Opposition in the House of the People would not be able to attend the  meeting but she has conveyed her approval to recommendation of the  name of respondent No.2.  Likewise, the Speaker of the House of People  also expressed inability to attend the meeting but conveyed his approval to  the appointment of respondent No.2.  Insofar as Leader of Opposition in  the Council of States is concerned, his personal staff informed that being  unwell and admitted in Hospital, he would not be able to attend the  meeting.  A meeting was held on 19th February, 2004 wherein it was  decided to recommend the name of respondent No.2 to be appointed as a  member of the Commission.  The Committee noticed that the Leader of  Opposition in the House of People and the Speaker had both conveyed  their approval for the said recommendation.  Thus on 19th February, 2004,  respondent No.2 was selected to be appointed a Member of NHRC.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

The appointment has been challenged mainly on the ground of  ineligibility of a police officer for being considered for appointment under  the category contemplated by Section 3 (2) (d).  We may note that the  challenge is based on the fundamental issue and not on any allegations of  personal nature against respondent No.2.  The contention is that none  from police or security force is eligible to be a member of such a body and  it is clear from the provisions of the Act, its scheme as also from the very  concept which gave birth to protection of Human Rights.         The Act has been enacted to provide for better protection of human  rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.  The  statement of objects and reasons notes that the human rights embodied in  international covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the international  covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the General  Assembly of the United nations on 16th December, 1966, stand  substantially protected by the Constitution of India.  However, there has  been growing concern in the country and abroad about issues relating to  human rights.  Having regard to this, changing social realities and  emerging trends in the nature of crime and violence, Government has  been reviewing the existing laws, procedures and system of administration  of justice, with a view to bringing about greater accountability and  transparency in them, and devising efficient and effective methods of  dealing with the situation.  Taking into account the views of all concerned,  the Act was enacted. The "Human Rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality  and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in  the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India [Section  2(1)(d)].  "International Covenants" means the International Covenant on  Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic,  Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United  Nations on the 16th December, 1966 [Section 2(1)(f)].  Besides two  members to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of or  practical experience in, matters relating to human rights as provided in  clause (d) of Section 3(2), it is stipulated that Commission shall consist of  (a) a Chairperson who shall have been a Chief Justice of the Supreme  Court; (b) one member who is, or has been, a Judge of the Supreme  Court; and (c) one Member who is, or has been the Chief Justice of a High  Court.  A high powered Committee consisting of \026 (a) the Prime Minister;  (b) Speaker of the House of the People; (c) Minister in-charge of the  Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India; (d) Leader of the  Opposition in the House of the People; (e) Leader of the Opposition in the  Council of States; and (f) Deputy Chairman of the Council of States, has  been entrusted with the responsibility to make recommendations for  appointment of Chairperson and other members, as provided in Section  4(1) of the Act.  In the event of the occurrence of any vacancy in the office  of the Chairperson, any one of the members can be authorized to act as  the Chairperson until the appointment of a new Chairperson to fill such  vacancy. Section 11 of the Act provides that Central Government shall make  available to the NHRC (a) an officer of the rank of the Secretary to the  Government of India who shall be the Secretary-General of the  Commission; and (b) such police and investigative staff under an officer  not below the rank of a Director General of Police and such other officers  and staff as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the function  of the Commission.         The functions and powers of the Commission have been set out in  Part III of the Act.  Section 12 whereof, inter alia, provides that the  Commission shall have power to review the safeguards provided by or  under the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force for the  protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective  implementation and study treaties and other international instruments on  human rights and make recommendations for their effective  implementation.  The Commission is also empowered to require any  person, subject to any privilege which may be claimed by that person  under any law for the time being in force, to furnish information on such  points or matters as, in the opinion of the Commission, may be useful for,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

or relevant to, the subject-matter of the inquiry and any person so required  shall be deemed to be legally bound to furnish such information within the  meaning of Sections 176 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code [Section  13(2)].   The power to conduct any investigation pertaining to the inquiry has  been provided for in Section 14 of the Act.  The special investigation teams  can be constituted for the purposes of investigation and prosecution of  offences arising out of violation of human rights in the manner provided in  Section 27 of the Act.   Chapter V deals with constitution of State Human Rights  Commission and matters related thereto including appointment of  Chairperson and other members and functions of the said Commission.   The NHRC is a unique expert body in itself has been amplified in  Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1999) 2 SCC 131].  The  judgment sets out how the Chairman and other two members, postulated  by clauses (a) to (c) of Section 3(2) of the Act, throughout their long tenure  get opportunities to consider, expound and enforce the fundamental rights  and how they are, in their own way, experts in the field.         Having noticed salient features of the Act, it can be seen that  the  aspect of investigation is only one part which has been dealt with  separately, the other part being the decision making power and functions  of Commission separately dealt with.  Let us now note the development at  international level which ultimately led on the passing of the Act.     The  consideration at the international level on the establishment and  functioning of national institutions can provide a backdrop to an  understanding of the Act.  Articles 1, 55, 56, 62, 68 and 76 of the UN  Charter provide the basis for recognition, elaboration of the contents of the  standards and the machinery for implementing the protection of human  rights.  The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted on 10th  September, 1948 a universal declaration of human rights.  The  international covenant on civil and political rights, the international  covenant on economic, social and cultural rights adopted by the General  Assembly of the United Nations on 16th December, 1966 formed a bedrock  of international recognition of human rights.             In the year 1991, the United Nations sponsored meetings of  representatives of National Institutions in Paris wherein a detailed set of  principles on the status of National Human Rights Institutions was  developed.  The principles developed therein are commonly known as  ’Paris principles’.  Paris principles were subsequently endorsed by the  United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations  General Assembly.  The six criteria of National Human Rights Institutions  under Paris principles are:- "(a)    Independence guaranteed by the Statute or  constitution. (b)     Autonomy from Government. (c)     Pluralism in membership. (d)     Broad mandate based on human rights  standards. (e)     Adequate power of State. (f)     Sufficient resources."

The Paris principles set out the principles relating to the status and  functioning of National Institutions for protection and promotion of human  rights.  In respect of composition and guarantees of independence and  pluralism, it provides that : "The composition of the national institution and  the appointment of its members, whether by  means of an election or otherwise, shall be  established in accordance with a procedure which  affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the  pluralist representation of the social forces (of  civilian society) involved in the protection and  promotion of human rights, particularly by powers  which will enable effective cooperation to be  established with, or through the presence of,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

representative of : non-governmental organizations responsible for  human rights and efforts to combat racial  discrimination, trade unions, concerned social  and professional organizations, for example,  associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and  eminent scientists; Trends in philosophical or religious thought; Universities and qualified experts; Parliament; Government departments (if they are included,  these representatives should participate in the  deliberations only in an advisory capacity)."

       In regard to structure of such institutions, the guidelines, inter alia,  recommended that they would be so designed as to reflect in their  composition, wide cross sections of the nation thereby bringing all part of  that population into the decision making process in regard to the human  rights.   India is a party to aforesaid covenants.  Indian Constitution  guarantees essential human rights in the form of fundamental rights under  Part III and also directive principles of State Policy in Part IV which are  fundamental in the governance of the country.  Freedoms granted under  Part III have been liberally construed by various pronouncement of this  Court in last half a century in favour of the subjects also, keeping in view  the international covenants.  The object has been to place citizens at a  central stage and State being highly accountable.  The main question is whether Section 3(2)(d), is to be read keeping  in view Paris principles.  If it is to be so whether a former member of Police  force or member of any Security Forces as a class, are ineligible to  become members of the Commission.           The investigation under the Act has been separately dealt with in the  manner provided in Sections 11, 14 and 37.  A Police officer may be very  good investigator.  He may have vast experience in respect of the nature  of commission of crime and consequentially its prevention.  But, for the  present purposes what is relevant to be borne in mind is that  number of  cases reported to NHRC relate to acts of omission and commission by the  members of such forces.  In this regard, reference can be made to NHRC  Report for the year 2001-02.  That report shows that large number of  cases relating to custodial deaths and police encounter deaths came up for  enquiry and consideration before the Commission.  The officers of these  forces while being members of service necessarily come across such  cases.  An individual officer may be very good but something inbuilt in  service as a class is the relevant consideration.  The Commission has also  to deal with type of cases, which officers had sometimes to defend, on  account of nature of their service.  Further, the knowledge or practical  experience in relation to commission of crime, investigation and solving a  crime which may show violation of human rights is one thing and the  knowledge or experience relating to protection of life, liberty, equality and  dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the  international covenants and enforceable by courts in India is altogether  different.  The requirement of the section is of latter and not former.   Paramjit Kaur’s case (supra), gives an indication as to what type of  knowledge or practical experience in matter of human rights, the Act has in  contemplation so as to make a person eligible to be appointed as a  member of the Commission.  We have to consider the eligibility of a person  who has to become a part of the decision making process of NHRC and  not the process of investigation which commission may direct to be  conducted.  The exclusion of the category under consideration seems  evident when seen as to who are included in the light of Paris principles,  namely, representatives of non-governmental organizations  responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial  discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional  organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

journalists eminent scientists; trends in philosophical or religious  thoughts; universities and qualified experts; and parliament.   Regarding the Government departments, their representation in the  deliberations is only in advisory capacity.  The scheme of the Act is to  protect and implement human rights including those envisaged in Article  21 of the Constitution and International Covenants.  The functions include  understanding and dissemination of knowledge on human rights.  The  members referred in Section 3(2)(d) are required to have the knowledge  and practical experience in matters relating to human rights of the type  expected from those covered under Section 3(2)(a),(b) and (c).  Reference  may also be made to Section 7 which provides that in the event of the  occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the Chairperson, any one of the  members may be authorized to act as the Chairperson until the  appointment of a new Chairperson.  The person to be appointed under  Section 3(2)(d) should also be one who can act as a Chairperson under  contingency contemplated by Section 7 o the Act. The Union of India, in its counter affidavit, has mentioned certain  cases investigated by respondent No.2 during his tenure as a Police  officer, which includes among other Punjab Massacre case.  It has also  been stated that respondent No.2 is a Vice-President (Asia) of Interpol, an  international police organization in which capacity, it is claimed, he is  involved in developing mechanisms for police cooperation in investigation  and prosecution of crimes across borders including terrorism, human  safety and human trafficking, which are all offences against human rights.   Union of India in the counter affidavit claims that : "During the course of their careers, police officers  garner in vast practical experience in police  methodology, investigative techniques and other  practical matters relating to human rights.  It is  submitted that such experience would inter alia  aid the Commission in identifying cases of police  mal-practice and the Commission would be able  to look behind  cases of cover up and attempts to  shield guilty police officers.  It is, therefore,  submitted that Respondent No.2 has adequate  knowledge and practical experience in matters  relating to human rights, qualifying him for  appointment to the Commission under Section  3(2)(d) of the Act."

       The expertise in investigation cannot be confused with expertise in  the matters relating to human rights. Two are entirely different.  For  investigation, police and investigating staff is available to the Commission.   The Commission can also require any person to furnish information on  such points or matters as may be useful for, or relevant to, the subject  matter of inquiry.  It may utilise services of any officer or investigating  agency as stipulated in Section 14 of the Act for the purpose of conducting   any investigation pertaining to the inquiry.  The Central Government is  required to make available to the Commission such police and  investigating staff under an officer not below the rank of Director General  of Police and such other officers and staff as may be necessary for the  efficient performance of the functions of the Commission.   While construing the provisions of the statute, the nature and object  of the statute cannot be overlooked.  In these matters, the aspect of public  perception cannot be altogether overlooked.  The statute of the nature  under consideration are based on public confidence.  It cannot be  overlooked that notwithstanding the exemplary role of police and security  forces, there have been many instances of excesses by the members of  the forces leading to public unrest and deteriorating public faith.  The issue  is not whether all are fully true or not but is what exists in the  public mind  and whether there is some justification. An individual Police officer may be very good but his participation in  decision making as a member of the Commission is likely to give rise to a  reasonable apprehension in the minds of the citizens that he may sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

consciously influence the functioning of the Commission.  Such reasonable  perception of the affected parties are relevant considerations to ensure the  continued public confidence in the credibility and impartiality of institution  like NHRC.   What has been said about the institution of judiciary in P.K. Ghosh,  IAS and Anr. v. J.G. Rajput [(1995) 6 SCC 744] can also be applied for  considering the institution like NHRC.  It was said that credibility in the  functioning of justice delivery system and the reasonable perception of the  affected parties are relevant considerations to ensure the continuance of  public confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary.  Assuming two constructions of Section 3(2)(d) are reasonably  possible, the construction which promotes public confidence, advances the  cause of human rights and seeks to fulfill the purpose of international  instruments has to be preferred than the one which nullifies it.  Ambiguity,  if any, in the statutory provision is required to be removed by judicial  process to advance the cause of protection of human rights. The observations in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors. [(1988) 3  SCC 167] that ’After all it cannot be denied that predisposition or subtle  prejudice or unconscious prejudice or what in Indian language is called  ’sanskar’ are inarticulate major premises in decision making process’ are  quite apt in the present context. On the aspect of sub-conscious mind, what Justice Frankfurter said  for not participating in the decision of Public Utilities Commission of the  District of Columbia, Capital Transit Company & Washington Transit  Radio, Inc. v. Franklin S. Pollak & Guy Martin. [343 US 451], is quite  enlightening.  It reads:- "The judicial process demands that a judge move  within the framework of relevant legal rules and  the covenanted modes of thought for ascertaining  them.  He must think dispassionately and  submerge private feeling on every aspect of a  case.  There is a good deal of shallow talk that  the judicial robe does not change the man within  it.  It does.  The fact is that on the whole judges  do lay aside private views in discharging their  judicial functions.  This is achieved through  training, professional habits, self-discipline and  that fortunate alchemy by which men are loyal to  the obligation with which they are entrusted.  But  it is also true that reason cannot control the  subconscious influence of feelings of which it is  unaware.  When there is ground for believing that  such unconscious feelings may operate in the  ultimate judgment, or may not unfairly lead others  to believe they are operating, judges recuse  themselves.  They do not sit in judgment.  They  do this for a variety of reasons.  The guiding  consideration is that the administration of justice  should reasonably appear to be disinterested as  well as be so in fact."  (Emphasis supplied)

       The aforesaid passage has been quoted with approval in Ranjit  Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 611] When a Police officer is a member of NHRC, the question to be  asked is not to his bias but is the impression of a reasonable right minded  person and the confidence the Commission would generate as a result of  participation of a person of such a background.          The principles laid in aforesaid decisions can be reasonably applied  for considering the question in issue in relation to NHRC which is headed  by a person who held the position of the head of the judiciary and has the  assistance of a former Chief Justice and Judge of the highest court of the  country.           In respect of violations of human rights during investigation, in D.K.  Basu v. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416], grave concern was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

expressed by this Court in respect of persons who were supposed to be  the protectors of the citizens and committed violence under the shield of  uniform and authority in the four walls of a Police Station or lockup, the  victims being totally helpless.  It will be useful to note what was said in  para 18 which reads : "However, in spite of the constitutional and  statutory provisions aimed at safeguarding the  personal liberty and life of a citizen, growing  incidence of torture and deaths in police custody  has been a disturbing factor. Experience shows  that worst violations of human rights take place  during the course of investigation, when the  police with a view to secure evidence or  confession often resorts to third-degree methods  including torture and adopts techniques of  screening arrest by either not recording the arrest  or describing the deprivation of liberty merely as a  prolonged interrogation. A reading of the morning  newspapers almost everyday carrying reports of  dehumanising torture, assault, rape and death in  custody of police or other governmental agencies  is indeed depressing. The increasing incidence of  torture and death in custody has assumed such  alarming proportion that it is affecting the  credibility of the rule of law and the administration  of criminal justice system. The community rightly  feels perturbed. Society’s cry for justice becomes  louder."

       The Court also took note of various other security forces and other  agencies where too there were instances of torture and death in custody.   N.C. Doundial v. Union of India & Ors. [(2004) 2 SCC 579] was a case  where the Commission enquired into violation of human rights by officials  of CBI.         Respondent No.2 has been a Police Officer throughout his service  career.  We assume that he was a very efficient officer and investigated  many cases including complicated and sensitive cases but what is relevant  for the present purpose is the ’sanskar’, to borrow, words from P.N.  Duda’s case, i.e., conscious or sub-conscious bias in favour of  investigating agencies. Once again, we wish to make it clear that neither we are  condemning any force nor upright officers  of which there is no dearth, but  are examining the confidence the community at large is likely to generate  on officers of such services being appointed as member of the  Commission, particularly, when the language of Section 3(2)(d) does not  admit of only one interpretation.  When two interpretations are possible,   the interpretation which promotes the object of the Act and public  confidence deserves to be adopted.   The question can also be examined from another angle.  The  knowledge or experience of a police officer of human rights violation,  represents only one facet of human right violation and its protection,  namely, arising out of crime.  Human Right violations are of various forms  which besides Police brutality is \026 gender injustice, pollution,  environmental degradation, mal-nutrition, social ostracism of Dalits etc.   Police officer can claim to have experience of only one facet.  That is not  the requirement of the section. Let us also note some of the decisions, in which drawing aid from  international covenants, law enacted by Indian Parliament was construed  and relief of protection of human rights was given. In Makinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’Costa [(1987)  SCC 469], this Court considered the case of a "confidential lady  stenographer" who complained that she and other women stenographers  who are in the service of a company were being paid lower emoluments  than their male counterparts.  Taking note of the fact that India is a party to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

the international convention concerning equal remuneration for men and  women for work of equal value (the Equal Remuneration Convention,  1951), the Court adopted a principle embodied in the Convention to  construe a law enacted by the Parliament, the Equal Remuneration Act,  1976 to grant relief to the petitioner therein by holding the action of the  employer to be an unconstitutional violation of the principles of equal pay  for equal work. In Sheela Barse v. Secretary, Children’s Aid Soceity [(1987) 3  SCC 50 at 54], the petitioner complained about the state of affairs in an  observation home for children.  While issuing directions to the State of  Maharashtra, it was held by this Court that the international instruments  which had been ratified by India and which elucidated norms for the  protection of children cast an obligation on the State to implement their  principles.  The Court said: "Children are the citizens of the future era.  On the  proper bringing up of children and giving them the  proper training to turn out to be good citizens depends  the future of the country.  In recent years, this position  has been well realized.  In 1959 the Declaration of all  the rights of the child was adopted by the General  Assembly of the United Nations in Article 24 of the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,  1996, the importance of the child has been  appropriately recognized.  India as a part to these  International Charters having ratified the Declaration, it  is an obligation of the Government of India as also the  State machinery to implement the same in the proper  way."

In the aforesaid case, this Court traveled one step further than in  Makinnon Mackenzie and made not merely a reference to an international  convention but a stronger expression of the binding nature of its  obligations. The endeavour of this Court to ensure a virtual judicial incorporation  of treaty law into the corpus juris is demonstrated by its opinion in Vishaka  v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1997 SC 3011 at 3015], in the following  words: "The meaning and content of the fundamental  rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are  of sufficient amplitude to encompass all the facets  of gender equality including prevention of sexual  harassment or abuse.  Independence of judiciary  forms a part of our constitutional scheme.  The  international conventions and norms are to be  read into them in the absence of enacted  domestic law occupying the field when there is no  inconsistency between them. It is now an  accepted rule of judicial construction that regard  must be had to international conventions and  norms for construing domestic law when there is  no inconsistency between them and there is a  void in the domestic law."

       Again in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India &  Anr. [(1997) 3 SCC 433], dealing with the criticism against reading of  conventions and covenants into the national laws, it was opined : "For the present, it would suffice to state that the  provisions of the covenant, which elucidate and  go to effectuate the fundamental rights  guaranteed by our Constitution, can certainly be  relied upon by courts as facets of those  fundamental rights and hence, enforceable as  such.  So far as multilateral treaties are  concerned the law is, of course, different \026 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

definite."

       Thus, international treaties have influenced interpretation of Indian  law in several ways. This Court has relied upon them for statutory  interpretation, where the terms of any legislation are not cear or are  reasonably capable of more than one meaning.  In such cases, the courts  have relied upon the meaning which is in consonance with the treaties, for  there is a prima facie presumption that Parliament did not intend to act in  breach of international law, including State treaty obligations.  It is also well  accepted that in construing any provision in domestic legislation which is  ambiguous, in the sense that it is capable of more than one meaning, the  meaning which conforms most closely to the provisions of any international  instrument is to be preferred, in the absence of any domestic law to the  contrary.  In this view, Section 3(2)(d) is to be read keeping in view Paris  Principles.  Further, the proposal to appoint police officers on two earlier  occasions was dropped when Chairperson of NHRC expressed his opinion  against appointments of such persons. Thus, construing Section 3(2)(d) of the Act, police officer would be  ineligible to be appointed as a member of NHRC.  The challenge to the appointment of respondent No.2 was also  made on two other grounds, namely, (1) Absence of effective consultation  with the Committee members and, therefore, the recommendation was not  in accord with Section 4 of the Act and (2) breach of established norm of  consultation with the Chairperson of NHRC.         Facts relevant for considering aforesaid grounds have already been  noticed. Under Section4 every appointment has to be made after obtaining  the recommendations of a Committee.  The requirement of Section is not  of ’consultation’ but of recommendation of the Committee.  It is true that  the recommendations are required to be made after taking into  consideration all relevant factors eschewing irrelevant factors.  Since  notice of the meeting had been given to Leader of Opposition in the  Council of States, it cannot be said that the recommendations of the  Committee would stand vitiated as a result of his non-participation.  There  is nothing to even suggest that any request for deferring the meeting was  made.  Undoubtedly, for meaningful and purposeful recommendation,  there ought to be complete disclosure of relevant factors considering that  the appointment is being recommended for a highly expert body in relation  to protection of human rights.  The members of the Committee were not  informed that on earlier two occasions, the views of the Chairperson of the  NHRC were asked and since the Chairperson was opposed to the  appointment of a member of the force, the proposal was dropped.  It is,  however, unnecessary to examine its effect in view of the answer to the  main question. Regarding the second ground, namely, the requirement of  consultation with the Chairperson of the NHRC for appointment of  members under Section 3(2)(d), the fact that the opinion of the  Chairperson was sought on earlier two occasion would not tantamount to  setting up of a convention requiring the Chairperson to be mandatorily  consulted.  Section 4 also does not postulate consultation with the  Chairperson.  However, having regard to the position of the Chairperson  and the laudable objects the Commission is serving, its functions being of  far reaching public impact, we hope that till the amendment of the Act, the  Central Government would consider developing a healthy convention of  consulting the Chairperson regarding the appointment of the members and  placing the opinion of the Chairperson before the Committee.  We may  also note that long time back the Commission had written to the  Government suggesting amendments in the Act and incorporating a  provision for mandatory consultation with the Chairperson regarding  appointment of the members, but the matter still seems to be pending  consideration of the Government.  It deserves to be expedited. Before parting, we reiterate that this Court should not be understood  to have condemned, in any manner, the Police officers or members of  Security Forces.  They are, indeed, doing great service to the nation.   Many of the officers in these services have dealt with most difficult and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

intricate situations and problems and have contributed a lot in their  solution.  The question considered by us is only in the context of their  expertise in the matters relating to human rights within the meaning of  Section 3(2)(d) read with Paris principles.  We also wish to place on record  our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Gulam E. Vahanvati,  learned Solicitor General on request made by this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appointment of respondent  No.2 as member of the National Human Rights Commission is declared  null and void but it shall not affect the validity of the decisions taken while  he was a member of the Commission.   The petition is allowed accordingly and the rule made absolute.