Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Appointment Of Retd. Justice S. Baskaran As Chairperson Of State Human Rights Commission

A Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted a month's time to the State counsel to seek instructions in the matter and report on the selection process that was followed in this case.

The development comes in a writ petition filed by one Logeshwar, represented by Advocate K. Jaisankar.

Justice Baskaran assumed the office of Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission on December 31, 2020.

It was the Petitioner's case that Justice Baskaran's appointment as the Chairperson of TN Human Rights Commission is violative of Article 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution.

He further contended that the appointment compromises the dictum of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank, (2020) 6 SCC 1, with regard to safeguards to ensure the independence of occupants of such offices.

In this case, the Apex Court had cautioned against frequent appointment of Judges (sitting or retired), in a non-transparent manner. It had said,

"There may be some posts which require retired judges to be appointed such as Lokpal, Lokayukta, Chairpersons of the Human Rights Commission, Chairman of the Law Commission of India, etc. But this should not become a matter of routine especially when the appointments are being made by the executive."

The Top Court was of the view that if the administration makes appointments and judges, serving or newly retired judges, are under consideration for such posts, then the independence of the judiciary is likely to be compromised.

"The public of this country still reposes great faith in the judiciary. That faith will be eroded in case it is felt that the appointments are made for extraneous reasons. Most judges live up to the expectations of the high standards of integrity and propriety expected from them but we cannot shut our eyes to the harsh reality that there are a few black sheep. One cannot expect justice from those who, on the verge of retirement, throng the corridors of power looking for post retiral sinecures."

The Supreme Court was therefore of the opinion that the majority of members of the selecting body must comprise of the Chief Justice of India and/or his/her nominees and the views of the Chief Justice and/or his/her nominees must be given precedence over the views of other members.

In the case at hand, the Court noted that the Petitioner has opposed the process followed in the impugned selection. The Petitioner did not challenge either the eligibility or suitability of Justice Baskaran.

The matter is now listed for March 23, 2021, for State's response.

Case Title: Logeshwar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order