As per case facts, the petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.2 as a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The petitioner argued that respondent No.2, a former ... Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Vice-President of Interpol (Asia), was unsuitable for the role. The challenge was based on the contention that the appointment of a person from the police force contradicts the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and "Paris Principles," and would undermine the Commission's independence, considering public perception of police as human rights violators and potential conflicts of interest. The question arose whether Section 3(2)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which specifies qualifications for NHRC members, should be interpreted to exclude police officers, especially in light of international principles and public perception regarding human rights violations by the police. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the clear language of Section 3(2)(d) does not exclude any class of persons, including police officers, from NHRC membership, provided they possess knowledge of or practical experience in human rights. The Court affirmed that neither the "Paris Principles" nor UN resolutions can override the express provisions of a domestic statute. It further rejected the argument that public perception or prejudice should dictate the interpretation of a clear statutory provision. Consequently, the appointment was found to be in accordance with the Act, and the writ petition was dismissed.