Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against 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 stated that the petition is "utterly misconceived" and no further time should be wasted thereon.

"These frivolous matters tend to take up substantial Court time and, more often than not, counsel furthering hopeless causes tend to dilate and seek to rely on judgments that may have no bearing on the issue at hand," it observed.

The principal grievance of the Petitioner in this case was that the post of Chairman was not advertised before appointment of Justice Baskaran.

The Court however observed that unlike ordinary appointments, the position in question is a "crucial" one where appointments are primarily made by invitation. It noted that even the statute does not require any advertisement.

"The Chief Minister of a State, in consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Minister of Home and the Leader of the Opposition would choose an appropriate person to be appointed as Chairperson or others as Members of the State Commission. As long as the appointee fulfils the eligibility criteria, that would suffice," the Bench observed.

Background

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 contended that office of the Chairman of the State Human Rights Commission is an office under the State within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Constitution and to fill up such post, all eligible persons should have been given an opportunity to apply therefor and should have been considered on merits.

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.

Findings

The Court observed that the impugned appointment was made by an exalted Selection Committee which is ordained by the statute. Thus, the Selection Committee may discuss such names as they may choose and even if there is no advertisement issued, the process cannot be flawed.

[Section 22(1) mandates that the Selection Committee for the purpose of selecting the Chairperson and the members of the State Human Rights Commission would be the Chief Minister, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Minister in-charge of the Department of Home in that State and the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly]

"Thus, the process of appointment involves consultation between the members of the Selection Committee and the majority decision of the Selection Committee will prevail as long as the person appointed fills the eligibility criteria indicated in Section 21 read with parts of Section 22 of the Act," the order stated.

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

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order