The Delhi HC has asked the Centre to explain by September 9 why the post of NHRC chairman was vacant for 3 months. A PIL said 2 retired CJIs were eligible, but the Centre was reluctant.
Is the UPA government deliberately trying to delay the appointment of the chairman of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)? The Delhi high court on Wednesday sought an explanation from the Centre as to why it was not filling up the post that has been lying vacant for three months.
A bench comprising chief justice AP Shah and justice Manmohan directed the government to file its response in two weeks (by September 9) when a public interest litigation (PIL) by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) — seeking its direction to appoint the NHRC chairman — will come up for hearing.
The petitioner claimed that there were two retired chief justices of India eligible for the post but the central government was reluctant to appoint either of them.
The apex human rights body was rendered headless following the superannuation of former chief justice of India S Rajendra Babu on May 31. The commission presently has an acting chairman, former Supreme Court (SC) judge justice GP Mathur.
According to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the NHRC chairperson shall be a person who has been a chief justice of the SC. In addition, “a person appointed shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters office or until he turns 70, whichever is earlier”.
As per these guidelines, the only former chief justices of India eligible for the post are justices RC Lahoti (69) and YK Sabharwal (67).
Sources claimed that the government’s possible reluctance to appoint either of these former CJIs could be the reason for non-appointment of the NHRC chairman.
“The disrepute of justice Sabharwal due to the various allegations of corruption against him and justice Lahoti’s supposed proximity to a certain political outfit may be the reasons for the government’s decision to delay the NHRC chief’s appointment,” the sources said.
Senior advocate and CPIL counsel Prashant Bhushan said, “Non-appointment of chairperson in accordance with the Act (Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993) in such a situation despite the presence of two eligible candidates is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The sources claimed that since the Centre was averse to appointing either Lahoti or Sabharwal, the only option left was to wait for incumbent CJI KG Balakrishnan to retire from the SC.
However, justice Balakrishnan’s term will end in May 2010, which means the NHRC will have to do with an acting chief till then.
The other option, which Bhushan feels is unlikely, is making an amendment to the Human Rights Act to allow retired SC judges to head the commission.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}