Today, On 9th February, Supreme Court questioned the Himachal Pradesh High Court, asking “What is the problem if some offices are shifted? Who are you to tell the elected government where to have the offices?” while directing it to finally decide the OBC Commission relocation plea
The Supreme Court, set-aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s recent ruling that had put a hold on the proposal to move the headquarters of the Himachal Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala in the Kangra district.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi, and NV Anjaria, indicated that there was likely no reason for court intervention in such instances.
The Court stated,
“Prima Facie, it seems to us that the shifting of HQ of an institute is a policy matter which has least scope of justiciability and especially if it affects the rights of public at large. It is difficult to form an opinion at a stage when the State has not even filed a counter (in the case before the High Court). Since the matter is pending at High Court, we make no further comment on merits. However, there is no reason for the State to not shift the office. Thus, we set aside the High Court (stay) order. State is at liberty to shift the office (to) Dharamshala or any other suitable place subject to orders in pending proceeding,”
CJI Kant remarked,
“What is the problem if some offices are shifted? Who are you to tell the elected government where to have the offices? Who is the petitioner here? Is this issue justiciable at all? Why the High Court is unnecessarily indulging in all of this? Lawyers have been agitating in Dharamshala when I was the Chief Justice there for a tribunal branch there. They were on strike then. Now if some offices are shifted, what’s the issue? This is not some court etc.,”
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the Himachal Pradesh government, noted that officers opposed to moving may not have to relocate at all.
She asserted,
“Some of the officers who have issues, they won’t be sent to the Dharamshala office at all,”
While the headquarters are intended to be moved to Dharamshala, the current office at Shimla will serve as a camp office. Divan also elaborated on the rationale behind the proposed headquarters shift to
Kangra, stating,
“Majority of the backward classes are there in Kangra. So they are close to Dharamshala.”
The Court emphasized that the platforms for justice should be made more accessible to those in need.
It inquired,
“When we (seek) access to justice or court at doorsteps. Should we not think in this regard? Shouldn’t people be able to come to seek justice or seek redressal?”
CJI Kant further mentioned that the judiciary should typically refrain from meddling in such decisions unless they violate constitutional provisions or fundamental rights.
He stated,
“Judiciary should remain aloof from such decisions unless we find that such a decision is directly in the teeth of constitutionality and or Part III (fundamental rights) of the Constitution,”
Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s stay regarding the matter.
Previously, on January 9, the Himachal Pradesh High Court had blocked the relocation of the State’s Backward Classes Commission office to Dharamshala in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Ram Lal Sharma, a former member of the commission, who opposed the move.
Sharma contended that over Rs.22 lakh had already been paid for leasing the present premises in Shimla for 99 years and highlighted that the commission has only a small number of employees. The High Court was informed that there were no indications of any accommodation arrangements in Dharamshala.
Last month, the High Court had requested responses from the relevant state authorities and scheduled further hearings for April, while maintaining the stay on the relocation.
The Himachal Pradesh government’s challenge to this order was heard by the Supreme Court, which expressed concern over the questioning of the proposed office shift and the High Court’s stay.