Government seeks Attorney General's view on AK Ganguly’s ouster

NEW DELHI: The law ministry on Thursday sought the opinion of Attorney General on sending a presidential reference to Supreme Court for the removal of Justice AK Ganguly as the chairperson of West Bengal Human Rights Commission in the wake of allegations of sexually harassing an intern. The government proceeded with its plan even as the former Supreme Court judge, according to a person close to him, maintained that he could not be removed from his post unless he was convicted by a court for his alleged offence.

The offence qualifies only as an allegation of “moral turpitude” and hence it can be covered only under Section 23 (2) of the Human Rights Act that governs the commission, the person said on the condition of anonymity. Under this section, no presidential reference to the apex court is required and the President can directly remove the chairperson or member of a state human rights commission if that person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which in the opinion of the President involves moral turpitude. “Clearly, there is not even an FIR yet, far from a conviction by a court,” the person said.

Ganguly has refused to step down from his current post even after a Supreme Court committee indicted him for “unwelcome behaviour” of sexual nature against a law intern last December.

The government is pressing ahead under Section 23 (1) of the Act, which specifies that the President may remove a chairperson or member of a state human rights commission on the grounds of “proven misbehaviour” after the Supreme Court holds an inquiry into the allegations upon a reference made by the President and reports to the President that the person be removed on these grounds.

Senior lawyer CS Vaidyanathan said the Section 23 (2) deals with a situation in which the President has no discretion, but added that the section does not bar the president from invoking Section 23 (1) and making a reference to the Supreme Court.