Appointment of Justice (retd.) S Baskaran as Chairman of TN Human Rights Commission challenged in Madras High Court

The appointment of retired High Court Judge, Justice S Baskaran as the Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission (TNHRC) has been challenged in the Madras High Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition (Logeshwar v. The State and ors). .The petition moved by Logeshwar contends that the appointment is against the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as well as Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16(1) (right to equal opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution of India. .Logeshwar further argues that the manner in which the appointment was made also goes against the decision of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank..A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on Tuesday adjourned the case till March 23, 2021, after the State sought time to obtain instructions and report on the selection process followed. .The High Court, while adjourning the matter, noted that the petitioner has not challenged the eligibility or suitability of retired Justice S Baskaran for the post, but has rather raised grievance over the manner of selection. .In his petition, Logeshwar states that the post of TNHRC Chairman fell vacant in 2019, following which the State did not show any eagerness to fill up the post for over a year. However, "all of a sudden" a meeting of the selection committee was convened on December 26, 2020, to consider the appointment of S Baskaran as the Chairman. .At this point, the petitioner contends that S Baskaran may have been recommended for the position due to some extraneous consideration."I understand that instead of considering and scrutinizing all the eligible persons, only the name of the 3rd respondent was considered in that meeting. I further understand that, because of some extraneous consideration, the State Law minister had recommended the name of the 3rd respondent for the post," the petition states. .The petition has further recounted that the meeting was boycotted by the State's opposition leader and DMK head, MK Stalin on the ground that the selection process was not open and that the meeting was convened after deciding on the candidate and only to confirm the said candidate. .In view of the same, the petitioner has also impleaded Stalin as a party-respondent, stating that "he is entitled to be a part of the selection process and he might have vital information to disclose before this Hon’ble Court.".The appointment of S Baskaran as the TNHRC head was thereafter approved formally and notified on December 30, 2020. However, this was followed by sitting Lok Sabha MP, Thol Thirumavalan appealing to the Governor to return the recommendation citing absence of transparency, among other reasons, the petitioner recounts. Nevertheless, the Governor signed off on the order of appointment, the petitioner adds. ."...the post of chairman of the commission is an office under the State and there are hundreds of retired judges of the High Court and number of retired Chief justices who are eligible for being considered. Among them, the number of retired judges who had worked as judges for more than 10 years may exceed 100. The selection committee had not considered any of them. The 3rd respondent (Justice Baskaran) had just worked as a judge for 2 years. He took oath of office as additional judge in the Madras High Court on 5th Oct, 2018 and retired on superannuation on 16th Nov, 2018. But, on some extraneous reason, the more experienced judges were not at all considered and the 3rd respondent was appointed. There was no public advertisement or invitation at all to the eligible persons to apply for it and that was the reason for the 4th respondent (Stalin) to boycott the proceeding," the petitioner has argued..It is further contended that:The post of chairman of the Human Rights Commission is an “office under the State” within the meaning of Article 16 of the Constitution. Hence, all the eligible persons should have been given an opportunity to apply for that post and out of the applicants, the most meritorious one should have been selected. The violation of this constitutional provision, in this case, renders the appointment of the S Baskaran as the TNHRC Chairman invalid.The appointment of any retired judge to any post requiring the appointment of a retired judge should be done only after consulting the Chief Justice, which is the basic requirement to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and to keep the judges away from chasing the executive for their post-retirement engagements. In this case, there was no such consultation and it makes the appointment as invalid.The fact that the Opposition Leader did not attend the selection committee meeting, as required under the 1993 Act, renders the appointment of S Baskaran as TNHRC Chairman invalid. When the opposition leader was available but not present, the committee meeting should have been adjourned.When numerous retired judges having more than 10 years of experience as High Court judge and also few retired chief justices like Justice Paul Vasanthakumar are available for being considered and appointed, the appointment S Baskaran, who had just two years of experience as a High Court judge, amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the State and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India..In view of these contentions, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside Justice Baskaran's appointment as the TNHRC Chairperson as arbitrary, unconstitutional, illegal and against the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993..[Read Order]