PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Due to difference of opinion, eligibility of police officers for NHRC membership under Section 3(2)(d) cannot be conclusively determined here; the matter is referred to a larger Bench for final decision.

Parties: Petitioner: People's Union for Civil Liberties; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: Respondent No.2 (Retired CBI Director)
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 18 January 2005
Procedural Posture: Writ Petition (civil) / Referred to Larger Bench Due to Difference of Opinion
Outcome: Referred to larger Bench due to difference of opinion between judges; appointment validity undetermined.
Legal Topics: National Human Rights Commission, Appointment of Members, Eligibility of Police Officers, Interpretation of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law National Human Rights Commission Appointment of Members Eligibility of Police Officers Interpretation of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2

Parties

People's Union for Civil Liberties

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Respondent No.2 (Retired CBI Director)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Referred to Larger Bench Due to Difference of Opinion

Legal Issues

1 Whether a retired police officer is eligible for appointment as a member of the National Human Rights Commission under Section 3(2)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
2 Whether the recommendations process breached established norms by not consulting the Chairperson of NHRC

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Referred to larger Bench due to difference of opinion between judges; appointment validity undetermined.

Orders

Matter to be heard expeditiously by larger Bench.