The Supreme Court on Friday, 5 June declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to fill vacant posts in the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission and frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for timely appointments in human rights bodies nationwide. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V. Mahadevan questioned the petition's maintainability under Article 32 of the Constitution and directed the petitioner to approach the Allahabad High Court instead.

What the Bench Said

As the petitioner's counsel argued that the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission had been functioning without a Chairperson for nearly two years and had only two members, Justice Vikram Nath asked pointedly: '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 counsel attempted to present a chart detailing vacancies across various state human rights commissions, the bench declined to examine it and signalled its unwillingness to proceed with the petition. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the plea with liberty to approach the Allahabad High Court, and the apex court dismissed the matter as withdrawn.

What the PIL Sought

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 4 June 2024 — adversely affecting the functioning of the statutory body constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The petition argued that prolonged vacancies had rendered the commission functionally impaired, undermining its ability to inquire into human rights violation allegations and provide institutional redress.

The plea also sought a uniform SOP requiring the Centre and states to initiate the selection process at least six months before a vacancy arises, to prevent posts from remaining unfilled for extended periods.

Broader Vacancies Across States

The petition flagged 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. The petitioner noted that a related matter concerning vacancies in the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was already pending before the Supreme Court.

Legal Basis and Context

Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and subsequent NHRC-related proceedings, the plea argued that constituting and maintaining effective state human rights commissions is a statutory obligation — not a matter of executive discretion. Critics of prolonged vacancies argue that delays in appointments systematically erode the institutional framework designed to protect fundamental rights.

This comes amid a broader pattern of understaffed human rights bodies across India, raising questions about state governments' commitment to timely appointments. With the matter now redirected to the Allahabad High Court, the onus shifts to the petitioner to pursue relief at the High Court level — where, as the Supreme Court noted, such monitoring has already been underway.