PHILIP THOMAS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed as pro bono publico by two practising advocates questioning the appointment of the second respondent as the Member of Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission. The second respondent was formerly a District Judge and retired on superannuation with effect from 31.3.2000. On 7.7.2000, he was appointed as a Member of Tamil Nadu State Public Service Commission. He resigned the said post on 29.3.2001 in view of his appointment as a Member of the State Human Rights Commission on 28.3.2001. By resigning his office as a Member of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 29.3.2001, he had assumed the office as a Member of Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission on 30.3.2001. THESE are the admitted facts.

(2.) THE appointment is challenged on the premise that Article 319 (d) of the Constitution of India creates a bar on a Chairman or a Member of a Public Service Commission to take up any employment either under the Union Government or under the State Government even after ceasing to be the Chairman or Member of the Public Sendee Commission. Apart from this, some other facts are also stated seeking to impute mala fides on the part of the former Chief Minister Sri M. Karunanidhi. But during the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners M/s.T.S.Sasikumar and P. Arivudai Nambi have not projected the said facts, but based their arguments only on the Constitutional bar under Section 319 (d) of the Constitution.

(3.) THE Human Rights Act has been enacted to provide for better protection of human rights by constituting a National Human Rights Commission as also State Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Courts. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act defines 'human rights' as the rights relating to life, liberty, quality, dignity of the individual, guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India. It is needless to mention that the above rights are all traceable to Part III of the Indian Constitution guaranteeing the Fundamental Rights and particularly Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22. Chapter V consisting of Sections 21 to 29 deal with the Constitution of the State Human Rights Commission, hereinafter referred to as the State Commission, and functions thereto. State Commission consists of a Chairperson and four members, out of whom, one should be a sitting or retired District Judge. THE Chairperson and the Members are appointed by the Governor after obtaining the recommendation of a Committee consisting of the Chief Minister as the Chairperson and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Home Minister and Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, as Members thereof. THE tenure of office is assured for a term of five years from the date of assumption of charge as a Chairman or Members of the State Commission and they can be removed from the office only by order of the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity or for the reasons enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 23. THEre is no role for the State Government in the removal of a Chairman or Members of the State Commission. In fact, sufficient safeguards have been made in Section 23 for basing the opinion of the President while considering the case for removal of the Chairman or the Members of the State Commission. Consultation with the Governor or the State Government is not at all contemplated under Section 23. Section 12 of the Act spells out the functions and powers of both the National Commission and State Commission and it is apt to extract the same.