OBC Commission Shift Is Policy Matter, Not Court’s Call: Supreme Court Sets Aside HP High Court Stay

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh government against the High Court’s interim stay, while clarifying that the final adjudication of the challenge pending before the High Court would remain unaffected.

At the outset, the Bench underscored that decisions relating to the location of government institutions are generally taken in public interest and involve policy considerations. Observing that a substantial population of Other Backward Classes resides in Kangra district and adjoining areas, the Court remarked that shifting the Commission closer to the affected population could facilitate better access and service delivery.

“Who are you then to dictate to an elected government where its office should be located? It is their prerogative,” the Chief Justice remarked during the hearing. He added that unless such a decision directly infringes constitutional or civil rights, courts should be slow to intervene. “How does this issue become justiciable?” the bench questioned.

The Supreme Court, however, permitted the High Court to proceed with the PIL challenging the relocation decision after considering the state government’s response. The state has been granted four weeks to file its reply before the High Court. The apex court clarified that its observations were confined to the propriety of the interim stay and would not prejudice the merits of the case.

The matter arose from a public interest litigation filed by Ram Lal Sharma before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, challenging the state government’s January 7 decision to relocate the Commission’s headquarters from Shimla to Dharamshala in Kangra district, while retaining the Shimla office as a camp office for the Chairperson.

On January 9, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj had stayed the relocation, observing that the decision warranted closer scrutiny in view of its administrative and financial implications.

Appearing for the state government, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan submitted before the Supreme Court that the relocation was driven by logistical and functional considerations. She informed the Bench that Dharamshala offered a larger and more suitable administrative complex and already housed several important commissions. Divan further pointed out that demographically, a significant proportion of backward class communities are concentrated in Kangra district, making Dharamshala a more accessible location for stakeholders.

She clarified that the Shimla premises would continue to function as a camp office where hearings would also be conducted, and argued that there was no justification for a blanket stay on the relocation decision.

Counsel for the respondents contended that the PIL before the High Court had been filed by a former member of the Commission and alleged that the relocation was being undertaken primarily for the convenience of the newly appointed Chairperson. It was argued that the Commission had been functioning from Shimla since 1996 without difficulty.

Rejecting this line of argument at the interim stage, the Chief Justice observed that shifting the Commission closer to regions with a higher concentration of backward class populations could, in fact, advance the cause of justice delivery.

Allowing the state’s appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s interim stay and permitted the Himachal Pradesh government to proceed with the relocation of the Commission’s headquarters to Dharamshala or any other suitable location, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the High Court.

The bench emphasised that, prima facie, the shifting of an institution’s headquarters is a policy matter with minimal scope for judicial intervention, barring cases where fundamental rights are demonstrably affected.