SHRC Nearly Defunct for Over a Year, Government Fails to Fill Vacancies. Over 283 complaints seek justice from SHRC.
SHIMLA:
No full-time Chairperson after Justice Rana’s retirement; two Member posts vacant despite January 2025 advertisement — even Justice Barowalia questions incomplete quorum
Shimla: Himachal Pradesh’s State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), the statutory watchdog meant to protect citizens against human rights violations, has been left virtually defunct for more than a year, with no full-time Chairperson after the retirement of Justice Rana and both Member posts lying vacant despite their advertisement in January 2025.
There are over 283 complaints pending before the SHRC as per data available from the office of the Commission.
Who will give justice to victims of the human rights violations? State Babudom and state government has no answer
The Commission is now functioning under an ad-hoc arrangement, with Lokayukta Justice Chander Bhushan Barowalia holding additional charge as Chairperson.
The seriousness of the situation is evident from the fact that Justice Barowalia has reportedly passed an order directing the Commission Secretary to explain why the required quorum was not complete.
In fact there are over 17 various posts which have been lying vacant over the years that speaks volumes that the SHRC remains as good as defunct in the state capital.
The development raises a fundamental question over the manner in which the Sukhu government has handled an institution entrusted with protecting human rights.
If the Chairperson himself has questioned the absence of quorum, why has the government failed to complete the Commission despite having advertised the two Member posts more than a year ago?
The government needs to explain whether the selection process has been completed, whether names have been recommended and, if so, why appointments have not been notified.
A statutory human-rights body cannot be allowed to function indefinitely through temporary arrangements while citizens approaching it are left waiting for justice.
The quorum issue has further complicated the functioning of the Commission. It is learnt that in some matters counsel are being asked whether they consent to the case being heard in the absence of the full quorum.
If consent is given, proceedings may proceed, while refusal can result in adjournment. But consent of a party does not automatically answer the legal question whether a statutory authority has the required composition and jurisdiction to finally decide a matter.
The issue therefore requires clarity at the institutional and legal level rather than being left to individual consent.
The plight of petitioners makes the situation even more serious. People approach the SHRC when they allege violations of their human rights and expect an independent statutory institution to hear their grievances and provide timely relief.
Prolonged vacancies can mean repeated adjournments, additional expenses and further delays for people who may already be in vulnerable circumstances.
For a petitioner, another date is not merely an administrative entry in a file; it can mean another journey, another expense and another period of uncertainty.
Justice delayed because a government failed to constitute a human-rights body properly is a particularly disturbing form of administrative failure.
Section 24(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 also assumes significance in the present context. It provides that after ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or Member of a State Human Rights Commission is ineligible for further employment under the Government of a State or the Government of India.
The provision is intended to safeguard the independence of the Commission and prevent office-holders from looking towards future government employment.
But in case of Himachal, if Lokayukta holds the charge then he can't hold other post as it violates this section of the HRP Act.
Its relevance to the present additional-charge arrangement, however, requires careful legal examination and should not be treated as an automatic prohibition without examining the precise statutory provisions and appointment orders.
The larger issue is why a regular Chairperson and Members have not been appointed.
The government cannot claim that it was unaware of the vacancies. The two Member posts were advertised in January 2025.
More than a year has passed. The Commission itself has reportedly flagged the quorum problem. Yet the institution remains without its full strength.
The government must tell the public what happened to the selection process, whether applications were scrutinised, whether the competent committee considered the candidates and why appointments remain pending.
The irony is difficult to ignore. The SHRC is supposed to question the State when citizens' rights are allegedly violated. Today, the institution itself appears to require protection from administrative neglect.
A government that claims commitment to human rights cannot allow the statutory watchdog to remain crippled for months and years.
The victims should not become victims twice — first through the alleged violation of their rights and then through delay in obtaining justice.
The Sukhu government must come clean. Why is there no full-time Chairperson after Justice Rana’s retirement? Why are the two Member posts still vacant despite the January 2025 advertisement? Why did the Chairperson have to seek an explanation over the incomplete quorum?
How many cases have been delayed because of the Commission’s incomplete strength? And who will accept responsibility for the hardship caused to petitioners waiting for justice?
A Human Rights Commission cannot remain a permanent ad-hoc institution. A watchdog cannot be kept on life support.
The government must fill the vacancies, restore the Commission’s full strength and ensure that citizens approaching it do not have to wait indefinitely for the very justice they came seeking.
