Question Description
Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?a)The Government can point out the phrase ‘On ceasing to hold office’ and argue that the members have not ceased to hold office, and thus this prohibition does not apply to them.b)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the phrase ‘Under the Government of India or under the Government of any state’.c)The Government can argue that the members do not fall under the definition of ‘chairperson’ or ‘member’ under the provision.d)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the definition of ‘employment’ as is used in the phrase ‘shall be ineligible for further employment’.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?a)The Government can point out the phrase ‘On ceasing to hold office’ and argue that the members have not ceased to hold office, and thus this prohibition does not apply to them.b)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the phrase ‘Under the Government of India or under the Government of any state’.c)The Government can argue that the members do not fall under the definition of ‘chairperson’ or ‘member’ under the provision.d)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the definition of ‘employment’ as is used in the phrase ‘shall be ineligible for further employment’.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?a)The Government can point out the phrase ‘On ceasing to hold office’ and argue that the members have not ceased to hold office, and thus this prohibition does not apply to them.b)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the phrase ‘Under the Government of India or under the Government of any state’.c)The Government can argue that the members do not fall under the definition of ‘chairperson’ or ‘member’ under the provision.d)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the definition of ‘employment’ as is used in the phrase ‘shall be ineligible for further employment’.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?a)The Government can point out the phrase ‘On ceasing to hold office’ and argue that the members have not ceased to hold office, and thus this prohibition does not apply to them.b)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the phrase ‘Under the Government of India or under the Government of any state’.c)The Government can argue that the members do not fall under the definition of ‘chairperson’ or ‘member’ under the provision.d)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the definition of ‘employment’ as is used in the phrase ‘shall be ineligible for further employment’.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?a)The Government can point out the phrase ‘On ceasing to hold office’ and argue that the members have not ceased to hold office, and thus this prohibition does not apply to them.b)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the phrase ‘Under the Government of India or under the Government of any state’.c)The Government can argue that the members do not fall under the definition of ‘chairperson’ or ‘member’ under the provision.d)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the definition of ‘employment’ as is used in the phrase ‘shall be ineligible for further employment’.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?a)The Government can point out the phrase ‘On ceasing to hold office’ and argue that the members have not ceased to hold office, and thus this prohibition does not apply to them.b)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the phrase ‘Under the Government of India or under the Government of any state’.c)The Government can argue that the members do not fall under the definition of ‘chairperson’ or ‘member’ under the provision.d)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the definition of ‘employment’ as is used in the phrase ‘shall be ineligible for further employment’.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?a)The Government can point out the phrase ‘On ceasing to hold office’ and argue that the members have not ceased to hold office, and thus this prohibition does not apply to them.b)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the phrase ‘Under the Government of India or under the Government of any state’.c)The Government can argue that the members do not fall under the definition of ‘chairperson’ or ‘member’ under the provision.d)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the definition of ‘employment’ as is used in the phrase ‘shall be ineligible for further employment’.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?a)The Government can point out the phrase ‘On ceasing to hold office’ and argue that the members have not ceased to hold office, and thus this prohibition does not apply to them.b)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the phrase ‘Under the Government of India or under the Government of any state’.c)The Government can argue that the members do not fall under the definition of ‘chairperson’ or ‘member’ under the provision.d)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the definition of ‘employment’ as is used in the phrase ‘shall be ineligible for further employment’.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?a)The Government can point out the phrase ‘On ceasing to hold office’ and argue that the members have not ceased to hold office, and thus this prohibition does not apply to them.b)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the phrase ‘Under the Government of India or under the Government of any state’.c)The Government can argue that the members do not fall under the definition of ‘chairperson’ or ‘member’ under the provision.d)The Government can argue that the post of Governor is not covered under the definition of ‘employment’ as is used in the phrase ‘shall be ineligible for further employment’.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.