Supreme Court Allows Shifting Of Himachal Pradesh Backwards Classes Commission From Shimla To Dharamshala; Terms Office Relocation A 'Policy Matter'

The Supreme Court has set aside the interim stay by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, staying the Himachal Pradesh government's decision to shift the State Commission for Backwards Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala.

The Bench emphasized that the relocation of an administrative office is essentially a policy matter with limited scope for judicial interference, provided it does not violate constitutional or civil rights.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria ordered, "However, there seems to be no justification at this stage to restrain the State from shifting the office of the State Commission for Backwards Classes from Shimla to any place in Kangra district, including Dharamshala. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal, set aside the interim order... The Appellant-State shall be at liberty to shift the office of the commission to Dharamshala or any other suitable place, subject to final outcome of the pending proceeding...It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are for the purposes of an interim stay; the appeal stands allowed along with the above points."

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan appeared for the State of Himachal Pradesh.

It was observed, "Prima facie, it seems to us that the shifting of the headquarters of an institute is essentially a policy matter where there is least scope for justiciability. Save in except when such a thing directly affects the constitutional or civil rights of the public at large, it is difficult to formulate such an opinion at the stage when the state government has not even filed its Counter Affidavit. As the matter is pending before the High Court, we do not deem it appropriate to make further observations touching the merits of the case."

Madhavi Divan submitted that such a decision was taken in the public interest, keeping in view the demographic realities,s as most of the Backwards Classes, as the OBC population is largely residing in the hill districts, broadly known as Kangra and adjoining area. The shifting of the commission to Dharamshala will facilitate access to the commission and will facilitate the commission's access to the OBC communities, most of whom live in remote rural areas. 

The Court also ordered, "State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved by an interlocutory order dated 9th January 2026 passed by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, whereby shifting of the office of Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backwards Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala, from Shimla....suffice to mention that the Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backwards Classes has been constituted to identify the caste and communities who are entitled, who would be entitled to certain benefits meant for the Backwards Classes. The chairperson of the commission was appointed on 3rd December 2025, followed by the induction of members on 23rd December 2025. The state government thereafter took a policy decision to shift the office of the commission from Shimla to Dharamshala and to maintain a camp office in Shimla."

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan said, "This is a larger policy decision on behalf of the state of Himachal Pradesh to want to decongest Shimla. In this case, we have a much larger premises available in a ready building in Dharamshala. There are a large number of other offices also in case of other commissions and walls which are being shifted. From the demographic aspect, people find it very difficult because the largest concentration of the backward communities is in the Kangra district. That is also admitted by the employees presentation...The class 4 employees and the lady employees, my instructions are they are not going to be moved. This particular office in Shimla is going to continue functioning as a camp office where some hearings will be held."

Chief Justice Surya Kant highlighted that Dharamshala is a well-connected location, dismissing concerns regarding its accessibility. He noted that other administrative and legislative functions, such as the winter session of the Assembly, already operate out of Dharamshala successfully. 

Cheif Justice Kant remarked, "Your state administrative tribunal has been in Dharamsala, has been in Dharamsala for all the times, as and when the state administrative tribunal is constituted. It is in Dharamsala only...Lawyers in Dharamsala have been agitating it. I went there when Palampur court was inaugurated. The lawyers were raising all the demands. 'Sir, we have been having at least the tribunal, you are not constituting the tribunal. I said, no, as a matter of policy, I don't want a tribunal because a litigant has to go to two platforms.' First, he will go to tribunal, then to high court. So, why burden the consumer for justice for that? So, they agreed. They didn't go on strike. They were happily... They had some reservations, but agitation, but they'd never go on strike. So, today, if some of the offices, like the winter session of the assembly is being shifted to Dharamsala, what is the problem? It is not in court that lawyers will oppose...It is an administrative office of a commission, a backward class commission. The commission will operate. They will have to make assessment in the state. They can do it while sitting in Dharamsala. They can visit other areas also. And Dharamsala is not something in Kinnaur district, or where you can say accessibility is poor. Dharamsala has better accessibility."

The legal dispute began when the Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed the relocation on January 9, 2026, following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ram Lal Sharma. The High Court had initially suggested that the move required "closer judicial scrutiny." However, the Supreme Court ruled that such a stay was unjustified at this stage, especially before the State had the opportunity to file its counter-affidavit. While the appeal was allowed and the relocation permitted, the Supreme Court clarified that these observations are for the purpose of the interim stay and remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending in the High Court.

"We should remain aloof, away from the decisions, assuming those have been taken for political considerations, unless we find firmly that we are such a decision is directly in the teeth of the constitutionality, constitutional philosophy, some part three or any other provision of the constitution. There we need to interfere whether it is a political decision or non-political", the Bench said.

Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Lal Sharma [SLP No. (C) 5202 of 2026]