The appointment of Justice BP Deshpande commands respect, both for the individual and for the office he now occupies
The recent appointment of Justice BP Deshpande as Chairman of the Goa Human Rights Commission by the Governor of Goa has been widely perceived as an institutional reassurance. The selection of a retired judge with a demonstrable record of probity reflects a familiar administrative instinct: to repose trust in individuals whose integrity has already been tested within the judicial system. Such appointments are often understood as extensions of judicial credibility into quasi-judicial and administrative bodies, thereby lending legitimacy to institutions that operate at the intersection of governance and rights adjudication.
Career of measured
judgement
The professional journey of Justice Deshpande reveals a trajectory marked by both accessibility and decisiveness. His tenure as Member Secretary of the Goa State Legal Services Authority under the framework of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was characterised by a willingness to engage directly with litigants seeking legal aid.
The facilitation of access to justice, often through personal intervention and guidance, reflected a grounded understanding of the law’s social function. This engagement was neither ornamental nor procedural; it was deeply rooted in the ethos of ensuring that justice remained within reach of those who required it most.
Subsequent experience as Principal District Judge and his brief tenure as ad-hoc President of the Municipal Appellate Tribunal demonstrated a capacity for swift and reasoned adjudication. Stay orders against demolition directives issued by municipal authorities were addressed with urgency and clarity.
The reasoning underpinning such orders was sufficiently robust to withstand appellate scrutiny, thereby reflecting not merely speed, but judicial discipline. The capacity to deliver decisions that are both prompt and jurisprudentially sound remains a hallmark of his judicial integrity.
Judicial foresight
at the High Court
The final interaction with Justice Deshpande in his capacity as a Judge of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, sitting alongside Justice MS Sonak, illustrates the nuanced application of procedural law. In a Criminal Writ Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it was observed that the Registry had inadvertently placed the matter before a Division Bench. Justice Deshpande’s intervention, drawing upon his experience as a Sessions Judge, ensured that the matter was redirected to the appropriate Single Judge.
This procedural correction was not merely technical; it had substantive consequences. The eventual discharge of an innocent person from groundless charges, owing to lack of electronic evidence, was facilitated through this calibrated judicial approach.
Yet, within this narrative of competence and integrity lies an inherent irony. Individuals who have completed distinguished judicial careers are seldom permitted the finality of retirement. Instead, they are frequently redeployed into statutory or quasi-judicial roles.
The appointment to the Goa Human Rights Commission is emblematic of this pattern. Integrity, once proven, appears to become a transferable credential, enabling its bearer to be positioned across varied institutional frameworks irrespective of domain specificity.
Specialisation and
displacement
Human rights law constitutes a specialised field, often pursued through sustained academic and professional engagement. Scholars and practitioners who have devoted years to the study of human rights jurisprudence, including those holding advanced doctoral qualifications, may reasonably expect institutional opportunities aligned with their expertise.
The recurrent appointment of retired judges to such positions, while grounded in considerations of integrity, may inadvertently marginalise domain specialists. This displacement is not merely a question of individual opportunity; it reflects a broader tension between generalist authority and specialised knowledge within public institutions.
The conflation of integrity with universal suitability warrants closer scrutiny. Judicial integrity, while indispensable, does not inherently equate to domain-specific proficiency. The assumption that a distinguished judge can seamlessly transition into any regulatory or adjudicatory role risks diluting the importance of subject-matter expertise.
Administrative law, in its evolving complexity, increasingly demands both ethical grounding and technical competence. The balance between these attributes must be carefully calibrated to ensure that institutions function optimally without compromising either principle.
Unfulfilled role
of mentorship
An alternative vision for the post-retirement engagement of judges may be contemplated. The accumulated wisdom of such individuals holds immense potential within academic and professional training environments. Law colleges across Goa, as well as institutions responsible for continuing legal education under the State Bar Council, stand to benefit significantly from direct engagement with experienced jurists.
The mentorship of young advocates, the refinement of advocacy skills, and the expectation of judicial reasoning are areas where such expertise can be most effectively disseminated. This form of engagement preserves the dignity of the office while contributing to the long-term strengthening of the legal profession.
The recurring redeployment of men of integrity into diverse roles reflects an underlying institutional philosophy that prioritises trust over specialisation. While this approach may yield short-term administrative stability, it invites a broader reconsideration of how public offices are conceptualised and filled. The integrity of an individual should undoubtedly remain a central criterion; however, it must be complemented by a conscious alignment between the individual’s expertise and the functional demands of the office.
Respect with reflection
The appointment of Justice BP Deshpande commands respect, both for the individual and for the office he now occupies. His career stands as a testament to the enduring value of judicial integrity. However, the broader practice of repurposing such individuals across institutional domains merits critical reflection.
Integrity, while foundational, cannot become the sole currency for public appointments. The evolving landscape of governance demands a more nuanced approach, one that harmonises ethical credibility with specialised competence. Only then can institutions truly honour both the individuals they appoint and the purposes they are meant to serve.
