Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 933 (PNJ)

Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-07-25

Augustine George Masih, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. (Oral):- The petitioner has filed the present petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation, though in fact he seeks to question the appointment of Sh. L.R. Roojam, respondent No. 2 as Member of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission on the ground that he did not meet the requirement of requisite experience of seven years as a District Judge of the State of Punjab on the date of his appointment as per the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). 2. The controversy really revolves around the wordings of Section 21 of the said Act which fall in Chapter V under the heading ‘STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS’. The said section provides that a State Government may constitute a body to be known as the Human Rights Commission and shall consist of: (a) a chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court; (b) one Member who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; (c) one Member who is, or has been, a District Judge in that State; (d) two members to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights. 3. In terms of the Amending Act, various provisions were sought to be amended including Section 21. Clause 12 of the Amending Act sought to amend Section 21 as under:- “12. 3. In terms of the Amending Act, various provisions were sought to be amended including Section 21. Clause 12 of the Amending Act sought to amend Section 21 as under:- “12. Amendment of section 21.- In section 21 of the principal Act,- (a) for sub-section (2), the following subsection shall be substituted, namely:- “(2) The State Commission shall, with effect from such date as the State Government may by notification specify, consist of- (a) a Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court; (b) one Member who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court or District Judge in the State with a minimum of seven years experience as District Judge; (c) one Member to be appointed from among persons having knowledge of or practical experience in matters relating to human rights.”; (b) after sub-section (5), the following subsection shall be inserted, namely:- “(6) Two or more State Governments may, with the consent of a Chairperson or Member of a State Commission, appoint such Chairperson or, as the case may be, such Member of another State Commission simultaneously if such Chairperson or Member consents to such appointment: Provided that every appointment made under this sub- section shall be made after obtaining the recommendations of the Committee referred to in sub- section (1) of section 22 in respect of the State for which a common Chairperson or Member, or both, as the case may be, is to be appointed.” (emphasis supplied) 4. The provision for a minimum of seven years’ experience as a District Judge was, thus, sought to be incorporated in Section 21. However, this is qualified by the initial wording ‘w.e.f. such date as the State Government may by notification specify’. 5. It is pointed out to us by learned counsel for the State of Punjab by referring to their reply that the State has not issued any notification to bring into force this aspect of the Amending Act which the Parliament in its wisdom as per the statutory provision left to be notified by the State Government itself. This is apparent from the preliminary objection raised that what the petitioner really seeks to assail is an appointment which is a service dispute and cannot be raised in a Public Interest Litigation. The appointment was made for a period of five years in 2008. This is apparent from the preliminary objection raised that what the petitioner really seeks to assail is an appointment which is a service dispute and cannot be raised in a Public Interest Litigation. The appointment was made for a period of five years in 2008. It is towards the end of the tenure of the concerned person in November this year that the present petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially sought to contend that the earlier Act stands repealed and, thus, nothing subsists. This plea is not sustainable for the reason that the said Act is not repealed, but is amended by the Amending Act. This is obvious not only from the wording of the Amending Act, but also from the first sentence itself ‘An Act further to amend the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993’. 7. The second contention is that the Parliament having enacted the Amending Act it comes into force immediately and it is not for the State Government to do something. This plea again cannot be accepted because the Parliament while amending Section 21 itself gave this power to the State Government as to when to notify the amended provisions qua the composition of the Commission. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner really does not have any answer to the preliminary objection other than to state that effectively the present petition is in the nature of quo-warranto. We find from record that the petitioner as a human right activist filed this petition. No details of what the petitioner does or the previous activities he has been involved in as a human right activist have been set out in the petition. 9. We are thus of the view that the petitioner has a misconception that the composition of the Commission stands modified as per the Amending Act, while the fact is that as per the Amending Act itself it has been left to the State Government to notify the date from which the composition was to be changed and the State of Punjab has not changed the composition by notifying the same as yet. We may, however, add in the end that the State of Punjab must examine the issue of bringing into force the amended provisions of Section 21 for which the right has been conferred on the State of Punjab by the amended enactment. 10. We may, however, add in the end that the State of Punjab must examine the issue of bringing into force the amended provisions of Section 21 for which the right has been conferred on the State of Punjab by the amended enactment. 10. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed with the aforesaid observations. ---------0.B.S.0------------