I do not think that it will be fair to say that Justice P. Sathasivam, a former Chief Justice of India, has “disqualified himself” for being considered for the high office of Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, merely because he has accepted the office of Governor (“ >An inappropriate appointment ”, June 5).
The assessment has been made without impartially evaluating his contributions as the Chief Justice. If he had the office of Governor in mind, he would not have commuted the death sentence that was awarded to three of the accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. It is only his enduring, humane qualities that made him modify the charge against and the punishment imposed on Pakistani national Khalil Chishty who had been languishing in an Indian jail for years, and which eventually allowed him to go back and spend the evening of his life with his kith and kin in Pakistan. As a judge, many can vouch for the way he has extended a helping hand to the poor and the oppressed. His being in the running for the post is with good reason — to bring constitutional value to this high office which was hitherto being given to persons with a political background.
N.G.R. Prasad,
Chennai
The article once again reopens the debate on whether a “cooling-off period” is applicable to judges to take up positions in government after retirement. If chosen, Justice Sathasivam would surely have to be obliged to the government, first for appointing him as a governor and then as the NHRC head, in turn giving rise to the issue of credibility in his decisions that might be in favour of the government in cases of human rights violations. It is time that certain concrete rules are laid down to instill a degree of confidence in the credentials of such institutions like the NHRC.
Agam Singh Bedi,
Mohali, Punjab
