The Government is ready with a draft Presidential reference to remove West Bengal Human Rights Commission Chairman Justice AK Ganguly and has sought the opinion of Attorney General GE Vahanvati on the matter.
A Supreme Court panel two weeks ago found the former SC judge prima facie guilty of “unwelcome sexual conduct” towards a law intern working under him.
According to top Government sources, the Union law Ministry has asked Vahanvati to spell out the legal grounds that mandates the Centre to seek removal of Justice Ganguly under the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993.
The move comes after President Pranab Mukherjee referred to the Home Ministry West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s letter seeking removal of Justice Ganguly.
Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde confirmed that the Ministry is awaiting the opinion from law Ministry. “Papers have come to us. I can say as of now that we have sent to legal department and then after obtaining their opinion, we will go ahead,” Shinde told reporters on the sidelines of a function here.
The Home Ministry is the nodal ministry handling the human rights commission. With the Home Ministry referring the matter to law Ministry for opinion, the issue got referred to A-G.
The task before the A-G is to suggest whether in the light of the evidence available against Justice Ganguly, a reference for his removal was made out. Under the 1993 Act, the procedure for removal of Chairperson of a State Human Rights Commission is laid out in Chapter V Section 23.
The President is empowered under law to remove Chairperson or any member on ground of “proved misbehavior or incapacity”. In such a circumstance, the President makes a reference to the Supreme Court, which makes an inquiry and refers its decision back to the President. The President is also authorised to exercise his power of removal where the Chairperson or member is adjudged insolvent, engages in any paid employment other than the duties of office, is unfit to continue due to infirmity of body or mind, is of unsound mind, or is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which in the opinion of President involves moral turpitude.
The law Ministry is of the view that a fit case for Presidential reference is made out. However, to present a watertight case, the A-G’s opinion would be of prime significance.