We had requested Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned ASG to appear on behalf of the Union of India and take instructions whether the Government were considering any proposal for reconstituting the NCPCR and/or filling up the available vacancies. If so, whether any advertisement had been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment against such vacancies. Mr. Luthra was also asked to indicate the procedure being followed for assessing the inter se merit and suitability of the candidates for purposes of nomination/reconstitution of the Commission. HAQ: Center for Child Rights B1/2, Ground Floor, Malviya Nagar New Delhi - 110017 Tel: +91-26677412,26673599 Fax: +91-26674688 Website: www.haqcrc.org FaceBook Page: https://www.facebook.com/HaqCentreForChildRights

1. ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 10960 OF 2013
YOGESH DUBE Appellant (s)
VERSUS
ASSOCIATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & ORS Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for vacating stay and prayer for interim relief andoffice report)
Date: 25/02/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D.P.Singh, Adv.
Mr. R.P.Vyas, Adv.
Ms. Sonam Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Salil Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Rajkiran Vats, Adv.
Mr. Umrao SIngh Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Jindal, Adv.
Ms. Neoma Vasdev, Adv,.
Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Adv.
Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.
Mr. Anant Asthana, Adv.
Ms. Puja Sharma,Adv.
R-4 In-person

2. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We had requested Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned ASG to appear on behalf of the Union of
India and take instructions whether the Government were considering any proposal for
reconstituting the NCPCR and/or filling up the available vacancies. If so, whether any
advertisement had been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates for
appointment against such vacancies. Mr. Luthra was also asked to indicate the procedure
being followed for assessing the inter se merit and suitability of the candidates for purposes
of nomination/reconstitution of the Commission.
Mr. Luthra has today filed before us a written communication dated 25.2.2014 received by
him from the Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development. From a
reading of the said communication it appears that six posts of members of National
Commission for Protection of the Rights of the Children (NCPCR) are lying vacant w.e.f.
21.11.2013.
It further appears that no advertisement has been issued for inviting applications from
eligible candidates for appointment against the said vacancies. It is also evident from the
communication that guidelines for assessing the inert se merit and suitability of the
candidates based on their eminence, ability, integrity, standing and experience have also
not been formulated so far. Applications have all the same been received from different
candidates which are said to have been processed and five applicants shortlisted for
nomination/appointment.
Mr. Luthra submits that the procedure for assessment of the merit of the candidates being
followed even in the absence of any norms and guidelines is fair and reasonable. The
Selection Committee is, according to the learned counsel, headed by the Hon’ble Minister
with the Secretary to the Government and an expert as members thereof. It was also
contended that there is no need for inviting applications from eligible candidates as a
sizable number of candidates have already made their applications. Even so, if this Court
considers an advertisement to be necessary or formulation of guidelines for selection to be
essential, the same can be done within six weeks, during which period the Government of
India would formulate and notify the norms and guidelines for assessment of the inter se
merit of the candidates applying for appointment against the vacancies based on the claims
of the candidates to eminence, ability, integrity, standing and experience in different fields
stipulated in Section 3(2)(b) of the Act. He further states on instructions of the Joint
Secretary, Government of India who is present in the Court that within the same period the
Government of India would issue a proper advertisement inviting applications from eligible
candidates so that all those who have not already applied also apply for appointment/

3. nomination. We see no reason to decline the prayer for grant of six weeks time to the
Government to take suitable action in regard to both the aspects mentioned above.
We say so having regard to the fact that the appointments sought to be made have
statutory flavour, and those appointed are remunerated out of the public exchequer. That
being so there is no reason why all such persons as are eligible for appointment should not
have an opportunity to apply and compete for the same. Receiving applications only from
candidates recommended by Ministers, Members of Parliament and other functionaries
may not be right as observed by the High Court in the judgment impugned before us.
Receiving applications from candidates recommended by people who have no role to play in
the process of selection may in fact have the effect of rendering the selection process
suspect for any such recommendations are most likely to influence the selection process in
a subtle manner to the prejudice of other candidates who are not resourceful enough to
secure such recommendations no matter they are otherwise equally if not more
meritorious. So also, we see no reason why norms and guidelines for selection of candidates
should not be framed and published so that the entire process of selection is fair,
reasonable, objective and transparent. If norms and guidelines are in the process of being
formulated as stated by the Government in the communication sent by it, there is no reason
why the process of selection should be hurried through to fill up the available vacancies. As
a matter of fact, if the very same procedure as was adopted earlier that came under severe
criticism of the High Court is repeated by the Government it may lead to another round of
litigation culminating once again in setting aside the selection process. Any such
contingency can and ought to be avoided by taking timely remedial action.
We may before parting add that although it is for the Government of India to examine the
matter and take such action as it considers appropriate, we notice from Section 35 of the
Act that the Government have ample powers to frame appropriate rules to carry out the
provisions of the Act. There is no reason, therefore, why the procedure for making the
selection including guidelines/norms for selection cannot be provided for in the Statutory
Rules framed under Section 35 of the Act. Besides the composition of the Selection
Committee for selection of the members of the Commission is one of the subjects on which
the rules can make an appropriate provision. Beyond that we do not consider it necessary or
proper to say anything at this stage. This petition shall accordingly stand over for a period of
six weeks with the direction that the available vacancies shall not pending further orders
from the Court be filled up by the Government.
The Government shall, however, be at liberty to move this Court for vacation/modification
of this order no sooner the needful is done by it in terms of the above.
(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera)
Court Master Court Master