Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union Of India ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Mr. M. L. Sharma, appearing in person, seeking directions against the Union of India in relation to alleged misbehaviour by Mr. K. G. Balakrishnan, the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The petitioner requested: (1) initiation of a judicial inquiry, (2) advice from the Union Cabinet to the President to make a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 317, (3) an interim restraint on the Chairperson from discharging his functions, and (4) any further relief deemed appropriate. After hearing the petitioner, the Supreme Court considered whether it should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction without the petitioner first approaching the competent executive authority.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Supreme Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 32 directing the Union of India to initiate proceedings for the removal of the NHRC Chairperson under Section 5(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Whether a petitioner can bypass the statutory and constitutional procedure—requiring executive initiation and a Presidential reference—by directly approaching the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Numerous individuals and organisations have made similar complaints to the Central Government, yet no action has been taken.

The petitioner personally collected evidence in Kerala to substantiate allegations of misconduct by the NHRC Chairperson.

Invoked Section 5(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, asserting that the Supreme Court has a role in the removal process after an inquiry.

Urged the Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 to ensure constitutional accountability.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that Section 5(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act specifies a sui generis removal mechanism: the President may remove the NHRC Chairperson only after a reference to and inquiry by the Supreme Court, initiated on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The petitioner failed to demonstrate:

Any statutory rule or rule of business empowering the Court to act without an executive reference.

That he had first approached the “competent authority,” i.e., the Central Government or Council of Ministers, to request such advice to the President.

Concrete evidence of other complainants or details of prior complaints lodged before any authority.

Given these deficiencies, the Court held that the proper course was to approach the executive branch, which could then, if satisfied, advise the President to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. In the absence of such a reference, the Court considered itself without jurisdiction to conduct the requested inquiry. Consequently, the writ petition lacked maintainability and was liable to be dismissed.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED – The writ petition (WP (C) No. 60 of 2011) was dismissed for lack of maintainability, and the interlocutory application for impleadment (IA No. 2 of 2011) filed by M. Furquan was also dismissed. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate executive forum with his material. The decision produces no broader jurisprudential precedent; it merely reiterates adherence to the statutory and constitutional process requiring executive initiation before judicial inquiry.

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union Of India .

Order

WP (C) No. 60 of 2011

1. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the following directions:

1. To issue a writ of mandamus/writ/order to the Union of India to initiate judicial inquiry to get proved misbehaviour of the Chairman of NHRC, K.G Balakrishnan, to discharge its function under the Constitution, and

2. To issue a writ of mandamus/writ/order to the Union of India to perform their constitutional duty under Article 74 of the Constitution to advise for Presidential Reference to get proved misbehaviour of the Chairman of NHRC, K.G Balakrishnan, to discharge its function under constitutional obligation, and

3. Be pleased to restrain the Chairman concerned K.G Balakrishnan from holding/performing function as the Chairman of NHRC during the pendency of the State investigation initiated upon criminal complaint filed in the State of Kerala and also during pendency of the judicial enquiry/reference under Article 317 of the Constitution of India.

4. Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Mr M.L Sharma, petitioner-in-person, submits that in spite of the fact that a large number of persons/societies/associations have raised a similar demand before the Central Government, no action has been taken. The petitioner himself has visited Kerala and collected evidence to substantiate allegations against the present Chairman, NHRC and it is a fit case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution and grant the aforesaid relief(s).

3. Mr M.L Sharma, has submitted that provisions of Section 5(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, provide for the procedure for this purpose. Relevant part thereof reads:

“5. Resignation and removal of Chairperson and Members.—(1) * * *

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Chairperson or any Member shall only be removed from his office by order of the President of India on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf by the Supreme Court, reported that the Chairperson or the Member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed.”

4. Mr M.L Sharma is not in a position to explain as how the proceedings in this regard could be initiated. Mr Sharma could not point out any statutory rules/Rules of Business of the Central Government, etc. in this regard. Thus, according to the aforesaid procedure prescribed under the statute, the matter perhaps ought to have been agitated before the competent authority i.e the Central Government or the Council of Ministers which could have considered the grievance of the petitioner and in case the said competent authority was satisfied, it could have advised the Hon'ble President of India to make a reference to this Court for holding inquiry in the alleged misbehaviour and it could have been only on that reference, that this Court could have proceeded and conducted the inquiry and the findings so recorded could be the basis to proceed further in accordance with law.

5. Mr Sharma is not able to render proper assistance to the Court pointing out any procedure and further wants the Court to proceed on the presumption that a large number of other persons have raised the similar grievance in this regard. There is nothing on record, so far as this case is concerned, as to who are the persons who had filed such complaints, and which is the authority before whom such complaints have been filed, what is the material which has been placed by those persons to substantiate their allegations. In such a fact situation, the petition is liable to be rejected.

6. In the instant case, as the petitioner has approached this Court directly without approaching the competent authority, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. It is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum, if he so desires, with the material which is in his possession in this regard.

7. In view of above, IA No. 2 of 2011 for impleadment filed by M. Furquan is dismissed.

WP (C) No. 35 of 2012

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Order reserved.

Writ Petitions (C) No. 60 of 2011 with No. 35 of 2012, decided on May 7, 2012

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union Of India .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union Of India .

Comments