SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging a decision of the first respondent Union of India appointing the respondent No.2 as a member of the National Human Rights Commission (the Commission). The primary basis of the challenge to his appointment is on the ground that prior to the impugned appointment the second respondent was holding the post of Director, Central bureau of Investigation and was also holding the post of Vice-President (Asia) Interpol. According to the petitioner, the appointment of a person who served in the police force as a Member of the N.H.R.C. is contrary to the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, (the Act), apart from being opposed to the very aims and objects for which the said Commission was constituted. The petitioner urges that such appointment would undermine the status and international recognition of the Commission as an institution for protection of human rights. It is also urged that the appointment of the second respondent is also opposed to the Constitution of India on the grounds that is is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. It is submitted that it is also violative of international covenants. For this purpose the petitioner has heavily relied on the principles laid down in the meeting of representatives of the national institutions in Paris wherein certain principles were evolved in regard to protection of human rights which principles came to be known as "Paris Principles". According to the petitioner, these principles were subsequently endorsed by the U.N. Commission of Human Rights and the U.N. General Assembly. The petitioner further contends that the U.N. Resolution dated 19.12.1993 concerning national institutions for protection of human rights, the compliance of the Paris Principles has become mandatory and since the Paris Principles prohibited the appointment of a civil servant like a Police Officer to such a Commission, such appointment of the second respondent would send wrong signals to the international community as well as to the United Nations. The petitioner also urges that the appointment of the second respondent has been made without consulting the Chairperson of the Commission which was the practice since the inception of the Commission. It is also urged that such appointment would have a direct impact on the effective implementation of human rights and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution including the right to life under Article 21. According to the petitioner, under Section 3(2) of the Act, two members of the Commission should have knowledge of, and practical experience in matters relating to human rights; which definition has been defined under section 2(d) of the Act to mean:

"Human Rights means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual granted by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India."

2. According to the petitioner, a person who headed a prosecution agency cannot be taken as a person who has knowledge of, or practical experience in matters relating to human rights. The petitioner also urges that the appointment of second respondent as a member of the Commission could lead to potential conflict of interest between the CBI and the Commission as the Commission is often called upon to decide on complaints of violation of fundamental rights by the CBI and also the police. According no the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No.2 destroys the independence of the Commission.

3. The first respondent, Union of India, in its counter opposed the writ petition contending that the appointment of the second respondent as a Member of the Commission is in accordance with the Act and the second respondent is qualified to be a member of the Commission under the Act. The first respondent contends that the composition of the Commission is provided under section 3(2)(d) of the Act