New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions for filling vacant posts in the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission and framing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for timely appointments in human rights bodies across the country.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V. Mahadevan questioned the maintainability of the plea under Article 32 of the Constitution and asked the petitioner to pursue remedies before the Allahabad High Court.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that a similar matter was pending before the apex court related to vacancies in the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), while the present plea concerned vacancies in state human rights commissions, particularly in Uttar Pradesh.
As the counsel argued that the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission had been functioning without a Chairperson for nearly two years and currently had only two members, the Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench said: “Why don’t you go to the High Court? High Courts have been monitoring all this. Why should you come under Article 32?”
When the petitioner’s counsel attempted to draw the top court’s attention to a chart showing vacancies in various state human rights commissions, the bench declined to examine the issue and indicated its unwillingness to entertain the petition.
The plea was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to approach the Allahabad High Court, following which the apex court dismissed the matter as withdrawn.
The petition had sought directions for filling the vacant posts of Chairperson and members in the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission at the earliest. It also prayed for the formulation of a uniform SOP for the Centre and states to ensure timely appointments to human rights commissions and prevent posts from remaining vacant for prolonged periods. The plea suggested that the selection process should commence at least six months before a vacancy arises.
Filed through advocate Aviral Saxena, the PIL contended that the post of Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission had remained vacant since June 4, 2024, adversely affecting the functioning of the statutory body constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The petition claimed that prolonged vacancies had rendered the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission functionally impaired and affected its ability to inquire into allegations of human rights violations and provide institutional redress to aggrieved persons.
It further claimed that several other states, including Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Sikkim, Manipur, Meghalaya and Uttarakhand, were also not operating their human rights commissions at full strength due to vacancies.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and subsequent proceedings relating to vacancies in the NHRC, the plea argued that the constitution and effective functioning of state human rights commissions were a statutory obligation and not a matter of executive discretion. The petition also referred to pending proceedings before the apex court concerning vacancies in the NHRC and alleged that prolonged delays in appointments undermine the institutional framework meant for the protection of human and fundamental rights.
(IANS)
