RITU SAREEN vs THE HPHRC AND OTHERS

2026:HHC:38877
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.15842 of 2026
Date of Decision: 11.9.2026
_____________________________________________________________________
Ritu Sareen
……...Petitioner
Versus
HPHRC and Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.
Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for
respondent No.1.
Mr.Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Virender
Thakur, Deputy Manager Legal (Company
representative), for respondent No.2.
__________________________________________________________________________

(Oral)
Sandeep Sharma, J.

Precisely the grouse of the petitioner, who is an employee of
respondent No.2-M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, is that on account of non-
constitution of Human Rights Commission (in short the “Commission”),
complaint having been made by her to it, is not being decided, as a result
thereof, great prejudice is being caused to her. Petitioner approached the
Commission by way of complaint, alleging therein violation of her rights as
well as mandate of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishaka
::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2026 20:19:03 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:38877
High Court of H.P.
v. State of Rajasthan , wherein certain guidelines came to be framed with
regard to prevention of sexual harassment in public offices, but since there
is no member in the Commission, Chairperson/Lokayukta, who has been
also given additional charge of the Commission, is finding it difficult to
conclude the proceedings.

2. Though at the time of filing of the complaint in the year 2024,
there was regularly appointed Chairman of the Commission, but there was
no member. However, complaint of the petitioner was entertained and
certain proceedings also took place and at the time of final arguments,
objection came to be raised at the behest of respondent No. 2 with regard to
quorum. Aforesaid respondent submitted before the Commission that for
rendering final decision upon a complaint, if any, there should be quorum
of minimum two persons i.e. one Chairman and one member or two
members. Though pleadings reveal that respondent No.2 had actually
consented for disposal of the complaint by the Chairman while sitting
singly, but subsequently raised objection as recorded above, as a
consequence thereof, Lokayukta who is holding the charge of the
Commission, adjourned the proceedings sine die. In the aforesaid
background, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant
proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:
::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2026 20:19:03 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:38877
High Court of H.P.

“1.To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction
directing respondent no.1 to conclude and finally dispose of
Complaint No.224/2024; Diary No.44/IN/2024, Case
No.410/8/11/2024-WC within a reasonable time notwithstanding
that at present the Commission is manned only by the Chairperson
particularly in the background of the consent recorded by both the
parties on 29.10.2025 ANNEXURE-P/7 and to quash the subsequent
order dated 03.03.2026 ANNEXURE-P/9 being arbitrary and illegal.
2.To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing impugned order dated 08.08.2026 ANNEXURE-
P/6 having been issued in colourful and mala fide exercise of power.
3. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that during pendency
of the proceedings before the Commission, respondent No.2 also filed
preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint, but
since same was not adjudicated, aforesaid respondent was compelled to
approach this Court by way of CWP No. 7755 of 2026, which was disposed
of on 18.05.2026 with a direction to adjudicate the preliminary objections
raised at the behest of respondent No. 2, but fact remains that aforesaid
issue never came to be adjudicated.
4. Be that as it may, in nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, if any,
can be said to be against respondent-State, which has failed to appoint
::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2026 20:19:03 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:38877
High Court of H.P.
Chairman, Commission as well as its members. Needless to say, Human
Rights Act, 1993 mandates respondent-State to appoint Chairman, Human
Rights Commission as well as its members, but more than one year has
passed and till date, no steps have been taken to appoint Chairman,
Human Rights Commission as well as members, as a result thereof,
petitioner and other similarly situate persons are suffering for no fault of
them.
5. True, it is that it is the domain of State to appoint Chairman
and members strictly as per mandate contained in the Act and rules, but
certainly, this Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, being a constitutional court having plenary powers,
can always direct the State to do the needful in terms of the Act, especially
for appointment of its Chairman as well as members within a specific
timeframe, so that very purpose and object of Act is not defeated.
6. Though learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 strongly
raised objection with regard to maintainability of present petition as well as
complaint filed before the Commission, but this Court, having taken note of
larger issue of public importance, does not find it necessary to adjudicate
upon aforesaid objections, rather deems it fit to dispose of the present
petition with a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal
::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2026 20:19:03 :::CIS

5 2026:HHC:38877
High Court of H.P.
Pradesh to ensure that necessary steps are taken towards appointment of
Chairman, Human Rights Commission as well as its members in terms of
Act, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered
accordingly.
7. However, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that till the time
complaint filed by the petitioner before Human Rights Commission, which
has been adjourned sine die, is not adjudicated, petitioner shall not be
transferred from her present place of posting and orders, if any, already
passed with regard to transfer, shall remain stayed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

September 11, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2026 20:19:03 :::CIS