J S YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition raises an interesting question as to whether the petitioner has been lawfully discontinued as Member of THE Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission as per the provisions of THE Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as amended by Act No. 43 of 2006.

(2.) A State Human Rights Commission was set up in the State of Uttar Pradesh under a Notification dated 4.4.1996 of the provisions of the aforesaid Act; a copy of the said Notification constituting the State Human Rights Commission is Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the amendment brought about the qualification of a Member of a State Human Rights Commission to be appointed from amongst a District Judge was altered. The earlier provision was that a Member has to be a District Judge of that State whereas the amended provision recites that the person has to be a District Judge in the State with a minimum of 7 years experience as a District Judge. The reconstitution under the Notification dated 28.5.2008 impugned in the present petition was brought about under the amended provision as a result whereof only a District Judge having an experience of 7 years as a District Judge, could have occupied office as a Member of the Commission.