"Frivolous:" Madras High Court dismisses challenge to appointment of retired Justice S Baskaran as Chairperson of TN Human Rights Commission

The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of retired judge, Justice S Baskaran as the Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission (TNHRC), term the PIL frivolous and utterly misconceived (Logeshwar v. The State and ors). .The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the thrust of the petitioner's challenge lay in the manner in which Justice Baskaran was selected, and not his eligibility to hold the post. .Appointment of Justice (retd.) S Baskaran as Chairman of TN Human Rights Commission challenged in Madras High Court.As far as the manner of his selection is concerned, the Court went on to point out that the decision of the Selection Committee should prevail unless the appointee does not clear the eligibility criteria under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.."... 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 principal grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the post was not advertised. Apart from the fact that the statute does not require any advertisement, in this case, there is an exalted Selection Committee which is ordained by the statute and it is not an ordinary process of selection... As long as the appointee fulfils the eligibility criteria, that would suffice. This is because unlike ordinary appointments, these are crucial posts where appointments are primarily made by invitation," the Court said..In this case, the Court noted that Justice Baskaran was appointed from a list comprising of two retired Chief Justices and 39 retired judges of the Madras High Court, all of whom fulfilled the eligibility criteria. .The Court observed that while retired Chief Justices of High Courts are usually appointed as Chairpersons of the State Human Rights Commissions, a. 2019 amendment allows the appointment of a High Court judge in this capacity as well. "It is not necessary that the Chairperson of the State Human Rights Commission must have been a Chief Justice or Judge of that State itself," the Court said. .The Bench also noted that there is no need to consult the High Court's Chief Justice when the person being appointed is a retired judge of the Court. "The Act is silent as to the assumption of office in the Human Rights Commission by a sitting Judge; but it goes without saying that a person cannot be a High Court Judge and the Chairperson or a Member of the Human Rights Commission simultaneously," the Court added. .With these observations, the Court dismissed the plea, while also observing, "The writ petition is utterly misconceived and no further time 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.".[Read Order]