Himachal Pradesh HC directs State to appoint Human Rights Commission chairperson and members within six weeks

The petitioner, an employee of respondent No. 2, M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, filed Complaint No. 224/2024 before the Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission alleging violation of her rights and non-compliance with the safeguards against sexual harassment recognised in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan .

Although the complaint was entertained and proceedings were conducted, respondent No. 2 subsequently objected that the Commission lacked the requisite quorum for final adjudication in the absence of a member.

The proceedings were thereafter adjourned sine die by the Lokayukta, who was holding additional charge of the Commission.

Respondent No. 2 had also raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint.

Its earlier writ petition, CWP No. 7755 of 2026, was disposed of on 18 May 2026 with a direction to adjudicate those objections, but they remained undecided.

The petitioner consequently approached the High Court seeking, inter alia, directions for disposal of her complaint and appointment of the Chairman and members of the Commission.

Whether the High Court could direct the State Government to take expeditious steps for appointment of the Chairman and members of the Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission so that pending complaints are not prejudiced by the Commission’s incomplete composition?

Whether the petitioner’s complaint could be directed to be finally adjudicated while the Commission was functioning without the requisite members and in view of the objection regarding quorum?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to protection against transfer pending adjudication of her complaint?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, recognising the High Court’s plenary power to issue appropriate directions to ensure performance of statutory duties and to prevent frustration of a statutory scheme.

It relied upon the mandate of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, under which the State is required to constitute the State Human Rights Commission with a Chairman and members in accordance with the Act and applicable rules.

The Court also referred to the principles concerning prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan .

However, the Court did not adjudicate the objections concerning the maintainability of the complaint or the precise quorum required for its final disposal.

The Court held that the non-appointment of the Chairman and members of the Commission had created an institutional impediment affecting the petitioner and similarly situated persons.

While acknowledging that appointment of the Commission’s office-holders falls within the State’s statutory domain, the Court held that Article 226 empowered it to direct the State to discharge that obligation within a definite timeframe where inaction threatened to defeat the object of the Human Rights Act.

Because the case raised a broader issue concerning the functioning of the Commission, the Court declined to decide respondent No. 2’s objections regarding maintainability and quorum and instead issued directions addressing the institutional deficiency.

Pending adjudication of the petitioner’s complaint, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve her existing employment position by restraining her transfer.

The Court did not decide the maintainability or quorum objections.

It further directed that, until adjudication of the petitioner’s complaint, she should not be transferred from her present place of posting; any transfer orders already issued were stayed.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.