The Supreme Court has issued notice on a public interest litigation filed by the Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of India, seeking to ensure that vacant positions in State Human Rights Commissions across the country are filled within a defined timeframe. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana took cognisance of the petition after being informed that numerous SHRCs are either non-functional or operating with vacant posts for Chairpersons and Members.
The petition invokes Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and identifies a systemic problem affecting the functioning of human rights bodies at the state level. The Court's decision to issue notice signals its willingness to examine whether states are meeting their statutory obligations to maintain fully staffed commissions responsible for investigating complaints of human rights violations and promoting awareness of human rights across their jurisdictions.
Non-Functional Commissions Across States
The PIL specifically identifies State Human Rights Commissions in Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, and Jharkhand as non-functional. Beyond these states, the petition also highlights the use of prolonged Acting Chairperson arrangements in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya. This reliance on temporary leadership structures raises questions about the stability and authority of these bodies to discharge their constitutional mandate. Acting arrangements, by their temporary nature, often lack the legitimacy and continuity necessary for effective institutional functioning.
The National Human Rights Commission website, which should serve as a central repository of information about state commissions, is not updated with current vacancy data. This information gap makes it difficult for the public, civil society organisations, and litigants to identify which commissions are operational and which are not. The absence of current data also hampers oversight and accountability mechanisms that rely on transparent public information.
Section 21 Compliance and Statutory Obligation
Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 sets out the composition and appointment procedures for State Human Rights Commissions. The statute contemplates a structure with a Chairperson and Members, each serving defined tenures. When these positions remain vacant for extended periods, the Commission cannot function as envisioned by Parliament. The petition seeks to enforce compliance with this statutory framework through judicial intervention.
State Human Rights Commissions are quasi-judicial bodies tasked with investigating alleged violations of human rights, issuing recommendations to government agencies, and promoting human rights education. When these commissions are understaffed or non-functional, citizens who have suffered human rights violations lose access to a critical institutional mechanism for redress. The delay in filling vacancies effectively denies citizens their right to approach an independent body for investigation and justice.
Judicial Scrutiny of Executive Accountability
The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice reflects its role in ensuring that constitutional institutions function as intended. By taking notice of the PIL, the Court has signalled that vacancies in State Human Rights Commissions are not merely internal administrative matters but issues of constitutional and public importance. The bench will now require the Union government and state governments to explain why these positions remain unfilled and what steps they are taking to fill them.
The petition challenges a pattern of neglect that has persisted despite statutory requirements. The Protection of Human Rights Act explicitly vests the responsibility for appointing Chairpersons and Members of SHRCs in the respective state governments, often in consultation with specified authorities. Yet many states have failed to exercise this responsibility promptly. Some vacancies have persisted for months or even years, forcing commissions to operate with reduced capacity or through temporary arrangements that lack institutional stability.
State Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Protection
State Human Rights Commissions operate at the grassroots level, investigating complaints that may not reach the NHRC or the courts. They serve as a first point of contact for many citizens seeking redress for alleged violations. When these commissions are non-functional or understaffed, the burden shifts to the courts, which are already overburdened with cases. The prolonged use of Acting Chairpersons in states like Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya suggests either administrative inertia or, in some cases, possible reluctance to appoint permanent leadership that might be perceived as independent.
The Court's Next Steps
The Supreme Court has issued notice, which means the Union government and the state governments concerned will be required to file responses explaining the current status of vacancies in their respective SHRCs and the timeline for filling them. The bench will then examine these responses and may issue directions for time-bound appointments. Given the Court's decision to issue notice on the petition, it is likely to take a proactive stance in ensuring compliance with Section 21 of the Act.
The petitioner's request for time-bound filling of vacancies is particularly significant. Rather than simply directing the filling of positions without a deadline, the petition seeks a structured timeline within which appointments must be completed. This approach would convert a vague obligation into a concrete, enforceable deadline, making it possible for the Court to monitor compliance and take action if governments fail to meet the deadline.
The Association of Retired Judges, which filed the petition, brings considerable institutional credibility to the matter. Retired judges have a deep understanding of the judicial system and the role that human rights commissions play in the broader justice ecosystem. Their petition signals that the absence of functioning SHRCs is a matter of concern not only to human rights advocates but also to senior members of the judiciary.
Enforcement and Future Compliance
Once the Supreme Court receives responses from the governments, it will need to assess whether the explanations are satisfactory and whether the proposed timelines are reasonable. If governments fail to provide adequate responses or if the proposed timelines are unreasonably long, the Court may issue specific directions with deadlines. In cases of non-compliance, the Court has the power to initiate contempt proceedings against government officials responsible for the delay.
The issuance of notice on this PIL represents an important step in judicial oversight of executive accountability. It signals to state governments that the Supreme Court takes the statutory obligation to maintain functioning State Human Rights Commissions seriously. For citizens and civil society organisations, it offers hope that judicial intervention may finally resolve the long-standing problem of vacant positions in these critical institutions.
The bench will now await responses from the government before proceeding further. The timing of the next hearing and the directions the Court ultimately issues will depend on the quality and comprehensiveness of the responses received. What remains clear is that the Supreme Court has recognised the problem and is prepared to use its constitutional authority to ensure that State Human Rights Commissions function as Parliament intended.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.