Back
Allahabad HC Summons U.P. Official Over Persistent Failure to Appoint Members to Minorities Commission in
The ’s has issued a stern directive to the , summoning the Additional Chief Secretary of the to appear in person on . The move follows the state’s continued failure to appoint a Chairman and members for the , a body that has remained vacant since its previous tenure concluded in .
Case Background The matter stems from a (PIL) filed by petitioner Shams Tabrez, who sought to compel the state to fill these . The case has been heard by various benches of the High Court since its filing in . Despite repeated assurances from the State counsel that the nomination process was "under process," no tangible results have materialized.
By framing the issue as a matter of public importance, the petitioner highlighted the administrative vacuum created by the absence of a functional commission, which is intended to address the grievances of minority communities within the state.
The Conflict: Verbal Assurances vs. Judicial Orders The core of the dispute lies in the government's approach to the Court’s previous directives. In , a bench headed by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali noted that the " " on the part of the respondents was " ." The Court had granted the state further time to provide written instructions, yet the state returned to court months later with only continued verbal assurances that the process was "still ongoing."
During the most recent hearing, the bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla expressed deep dissatisfaction, stating that the state's reliance on despite earlier was "highly disrespectful" of the Court’s previous orders.
Key Observations The frustration of the bench was evident in their order, which underscored the gravity of the institutional neglect:
"This is highly disrespectful of the order passed by theon. Till date no written instructions have been provided what to say of nomination of Chairman and Members. This is inspite of the strong observations made in the aforesaid order."
In a separate observation regarding the state's previous conduct, the Court remarked:
"Theon part of the respondents despite the fact that the tenure of the previous Commission had come to an end in the year, is."
Court’s Decision and Future Implications Finding the state's lack of concrete action unacceptable, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary of the to appear personally on . This official must explain:
1. Why the nominations for the Commission remain pending.
2. Why the State has failed to provide written instructions to its own counsel, effectively stalling judicial proceedings.
The Court noted that if the post of Additional Chief Secretary is vacant, the Principal Secretary of the department must appear in their stead. This summons highlights the judiciary's rising intolerance toward lethargy in statutory appointments, setting a precedent that government departments cannot evade accountability through indefinite delays and unverified verbal status updates.
As the matter stands, the high-level attendance mandated by the Court on July 20 will be a critical test of whether the state is finally prepared to restore the functionality of the Minorities Commission.
