Is Haryana govt waiting for contempt of court? -Issue of delay in appointment of Chairman and members of Humans Rights Commission .

Gustakhi Maaf Haryana-Pawan Kumar Bansal.

Is Haryana government waiting for contempt of court ?- issue of delay in appointment of Chairman and members of Haryana Humans Rights Commission.Our investigation on the Human Rights Commission: A Stance Endorsed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana

Two days ago, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued a strict order against the Government of Haryana and its Chief Secretary. The court directed that if appointments in the Haryana Human Rights Commission not made within 10 days, i.e., by November 28. Failure to comply would require the Chief Secretary to appear in person before the court and bear litigation costs amounting to ₹50,000 from his own pocket.

This order highlights the inadequacy of legal experts and bureaucrats within the current government. It suggests that they are either providing flawed advice to the Chief Minister, potentially sabotaging the government, or are simply not competent enough to handle such critical appointments. This has now placed the government in an awkward position.
Reliable sources also indicate that bureaucracy always keeps eye on such key posts to accomodate reitered friends this can be the one reson of delay, however the recent Comments of Supreme Court in a RARA case that” it had become a rehabilitation centre for bureaucrats” is set back to them.

Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, it is explicitly stated that a vacancy in the selection committee does not affect appointments. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has already addressed similar issues in the past when the Central Government adopted a similar stance, arguing that key appointments could not be made in the absence of a Leader of the Opposition (LOP). The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of this argument.

The apex court unequivocally stated that key appointments cannot be delayed simply because there is no LOP. In a landmark judgment regarding the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner under similar circumstances, when there was no LOP in Parliament the Supreme Court ruled that the Chief Justice of India should also be included as a member of the selection committee.

Senior legal experts opine that if the government fails to comprehend the implications of such judgments—which serve as an alarm bell—there is a real possibility that control over such appointments may eventually be assumed by the High Court. A historical precedent exists: a previous government’s failure to manage similar issues decades ago led to subordinate judicial appointments being brought under the High Court’s jurisdiction, reducing the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) to a mere post office.

Now in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, it is now easier for the High Court to take a similar course of action if the current government continues to falter in fulfilling its responsibilities regarding these key appointments .