Back
Supreme Court Issues Notice on PIL Seeking Filling of Vacancies in State Human Rights Commissions
The has taken note of a critical seeking to address the widespread vacancies in across the country. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana issued notice to the , the , and all state governments on Monday, calling for their responses to the alarming state of affairs highlighted in the petition.
The PIL, filed by the through advocate , paints a grim picture of the human rights watchdog framework in India. It alleges that several SHRCs are either completely defunct, understaffed, or lack permanent leadership, rendering them incapable of addressing the grievances of citizens. The court's intervention comes at a time when the credibility of these statutory bodies is increasingly under scrutiny.
A Commission in Crisis
The petition specifically names Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, and Jharkhand as states where the SHRCs are effectively non-functional. In these states, the absence of chairpersons and members has brought the work of the commissions to a standstill. The petitioner further highlights that in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya, the commissions have been functioning with acting chairpersons for prolonged periods—a practice that undermines the independence and efficacy of these bodies.
The Association has sought a directing all states to fill existing vacancies in the posts of chairpersons and members within a time-bound period to be fixed by the court. The plea emphasizes strict compliance with , which lays down the qualifications and process for appointment to SHRCs. Additionally, the petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's landmark directions in DK Basu vs State of West Bengal (), which established the broad framework for the functioning of human rights commissions.
The Legal Framework and the DK Basu Precedent
Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act mandates that each SHRC shall consist of a chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court, and two members—one of whom must be a current or former judge of a High Court or a District Judge with at least seven years' experience, and the other a person with knowledge or practical experience in human rights. The Act also requires the commission to have a secretary and adequate staff. However, the petition argues that these provisions are being routinely ignored by states, leading to a systemic failure.
The Supreme Court's directions in DK Basu are often cited as a foundational text for the functioning of human rights bodies. The case established that human rights commissions must act as vigilant guardians of the rights of citizens, particularly the marginalized. The petitioner contends that the current state of SHRCs violates the spirit of that judgment, as many commissions lack even the basic infrastructure to investigate complaints or hold hearings.
State-Specific Concerns and the Petitioner's Demands
Beyond the three states with completely defunct commissions, the PIL raises concerns about several others. In Manipur, Meghalaya, Telangana, and Mizoram, the commissions have outdated or non-functional websites, which the petitioner argues is a violation of . That section requires SHRCs to submit annual reports to the state legislature and make them publicly available. The petition seeks directions to ensure these reports are published on official websites and placed before the respective legislatures.
Another critical demand concerns the transfer of complaints. The petitioner has requested that no complaints under be transferred to SHRCs that lack a functioning chairperson or members capable of adjudicating them. This is particularly relevant for cases that the NHRC has already sent to the defunct commissions in Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, and Jharkhand. The Association has sought data on the status of such transferred cases, fearing that victims of human rights violations are being left in legal limbo.
The plea also calls for the states to provide SHRCs with adequate administrative, investigative, and technical staff, including senior government and police personnel. Without such support, even functioning commissions struggle to handle the volume of complaints they receive.
A Need for Continuous Monitoring
Perhaps the most far-reaching request in the petition is for a —a mechanism by which the Supreme Court would monitor the compliance of states and the NHRC through periodic status reports. This approach has been used in other cases, such as those concerning prison conditions and police reforms. The petitioner argues that only through sustained can the chronic underfunding and neglect of SHRCs be addressed.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel drew the court's attention to a troubling detail:
"Even the NHRC website is not updated."
This observation underscores the broader problem of transparency and accountability that plagues the entire human rights commission ecosystem in India.
Implications for Legal Practice and Human Rights Enforcement
For legal professionals, this case highlights several critical issues. The efficient functioning of SHRCs is essential for the enforcement of at the state level. When these commissions are defunct or understaffed, victims of human rights violations—often among the most vulnerable sections of society—have no accessible forum for redress. The PIL also raises questions about the constitutional obligation of states under to maintain effective mechanisms for protecting human rights.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how the Supreme Court enforces by state governments. If the court issues a for filling vacancies and mandates regular reporting, it could spur similar reforms in other quasi-judicial bodies. Conversely, continued inaction could erode public trust in the human rights framework.
The DK Basu case itself is a reminder that the Supreme Court is willing to issue detailed guidelines to fill legislative gaps. The present PIL offers an opportunity for the court to reaffirm that human rights cannot be a bureaucratic afterthought.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court reviews this PIL, it stands at the crossroads of administrative efficiency and . The petition is not merely about filling posts; it is about ensuring that the promise of the Protection of Human Rights Act is fulfilled. For the millions of Indians who depend on SHRCs for justice, the court's intervention could not be more timely. The next hearing will likely see detailed responses from the and states, but the direction has been set: the of vacant and defunct human rights commissions is no longer acceptable.
