Opinion: Court prefers people with outstanding track record

These observations were made in the context of hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) relating to the constitution of Tamil Nadu State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (TNCPCR) to be constituted under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. 

Even when the case was being heard, the state government appointed Kalyani Mathivanan, a former Vice –Chancellor of the Madurai Kamaraj University as its Chairperson and informed the court accordingly. Taking exception to her appointment, the petitioner in that case contended that she was not qualified to hold the post and no norms were followed in appointing her. It was in this context the division bench presided by Chief Justice Kaul made those observations. In effect, the court was impressing upon the government that if they do not revoke the appointment made and strictly follow the norms in making such as appointment, the court will have no hesitation in setting aside the selection so made.

What is really wrong with her appointment? The 2005 enactment made by the Parliament provided for appointment of a National Commission as well as State Commission for Protection of Children’s Rights. The qualification for holding the post of a Chairperson is prescribed under Section 17 of the Act which requires that person must be someone of eminence and has done outstanding work in promoting the welfare of children. In respect of other six members of which two should be women, there are some special requirements have to be made.

In order to select a Chairperson and Members, Section 18 of the Act provides that it should be made on the recommendation of a three-member selection committee constituted by the state government under the chairmanship of the minister-in-charge of the department, dealing with children. 

It was contended before the High Court that Kalyani Mathivanan has no credentials to hold the post as she is not a person of eminence who did outstanding work for promoting the welfare of children as required under law. She worked as an associate professor of English in a private college and later was made the Vice-Chancellor of the Madurai Kamaraj University by the state government. Her appointment as the Vice-Chancellor itself was under challenge before the courts and it was contended that she was not qualified to hold the post of the Vice-Chancellor (VC), as she was not even a professor at the time of considering her appointment. Out of the 105 applications received, she was the only Associate Professor who was recommended for the post. 

A division bench of the MHC, taking exception to her appointment, held that she does not possess the qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for the post of Vice-Chancellor. It observed “Anyone without any qualifications whatsoever can be appointed as VC in view of absence of any prescription in this regard”. And it was further noted “non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria could not be completely “whitewashed” on the specious plea that the UGC regulations were only directory and not mandatory”. 

As against the said order, she moved the Supreme Court and initially obtained an interim order. She was welcomed back into the University whole heartedly. She succeeded before the Supreme Court which held that since the UGC regulations are yet to be adopted by the state they cannot be mandatory and there was no illegality in her appointment. Having finished her term, it was a second largesse conferred on her by the state. 

The state government is yet to justify as to how she was qualified to hold the Chairperson of the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The High Court is yet to be convinced about her credentials of having done outstanding work for promoting the welfare of children. 

Even otherwise the court expressed itself by stating that the norms for filling up the post i.e., that by not considering more than one name and not preparing a Panel, is not in accordance with the Act in question. If the state government do not make amends, it is likely the High Court may intervene in this regard. 

Many enactments have been made by the Parliament and state legislatures creating special forums with particular object in mind. The persons who are responsible to implement those task must keep in mind the spirit behind the law. Laws are made for the welfare of the people. But only in Tamil Nadu we find that either the forums are choked by not filling up the posts or rewarded to people who are their political allies or related to some big wigs. The State Human Rights Commission was headless for over two and a half years, and thanks to a PIL, it was filled up. The State Consumer Forum is yet to see its head and the seat has been kept vacant for more than a year.

Very recently Justice Arjit Pasayat Committee appointed by the Supreme court opined that “consumer forums in many states have become the backyard for politicians and bureaucrats to fill the posts of non-judicial members with their men”. Doling out posts on spoil sharing basis may be common in USA, but with a constitution of our own it is alien to rule of law in our country.