Human Rights Commissions in India: Guardians of Human Dignity

When we speak of human dignity, freedom, and justice, we are not just quoting high-sounding constitutional ideals. These values need institutions that actively protect them on the ground. That is precisely why the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) were created. Born out of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, these bodies serve as watchdogs that investigate violations, review laws and policies, and push for a culture where every individual’s rights are taken seriously. Let us unpack how they function, why they matter, and where they still need to evolve.

The legal foundation: Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 🔗

Before 1993, there was no dedicated institutional mechanism in the country to examine allegations of custodial deaths, police excesses, or discrimination in a structured manner. Rising concerns, both domestic and international, pushed the Parliament to enact a specific law. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA) provided the statutory foundation for the NHRC, SHRCs, and Human Rights Courts.

The Act defines human rights as rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual that are guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants, and that can be enforced by courts in India. This definition is important because it links domestic rights with international commitments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The enactment also aligned India with the Paris Principles, which were adopted at the first international workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights held in Paris in 1991 and later endorsed by the UN General Assembly in December 1993. These principles lay down global benchmarks around autonomy, pluralism, and independence that national human rights institutions must follow.

National Human Rights Commission: structure and composition 🔗

The NHRC was formally constituted on 12 October 1993 and is headquartered in New Delhi. It is a statutory body, meaning it draws its power from legislation, not directly from the Constitution. This distinction matters because, unlike constitutional bodies such as the Election Commission, the NHRC can be restructured or strengthened through ordinary parliamentary amendment.

Who sits on the NHRC? 🔗

The Commission is a multi-member body. Following the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, its composition looks like this:

Chairperson: A person who has been the Chief Justice of India, or a Judge of the Supreme Court. Earlier, only a former Chief Justice of India was eligible; the 2019 amendment widened the pool to include any former Supreme Court judge.

Members: One person who is, or has been, a judge of the Supreme Court; one person who is, or has been, Chief Justice of a High Court; and three members (of which at least one must be a woman) having knowledge of or practical experience in matters relating to human rights.

Ex-officio members: The chairpersons of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, National Commission for Women, National Commission for Minorities, National Commission for Backward Classes, National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

Appointment and tenure 🔗

The Chairperson and Members are appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a high-powered committee comprising the Prime Minister (as head), the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Leaders of Opposition in both Houses, and the Union Home Minister. This cross-party composition is meant to insulate appointments from narrow political calculations.

As per the 2019 amendment, the term of office is now three years, or until the age of seventy, whichever is earlier. Earlier, the tenure was five years. The amendment also removed the earlier five-year cap on reappointment, allowing greater flexibility.

Functions and powers of the NHRC 🔗

Section 12 of the Act lists the functions of the NHRC, and they are broader than most people imagine. The Commission can inquire, suo motu or on a petition or on a direction from a court, into allegations of violation of human rights or negligence in preventing such violations by a public servant. It can intervene in court proceedings involving alleged violations, visit jails and detention centres to study conditions of inmates, and review the factors (including acts of terrorism) that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights.

The NHRC also studies treaties and international instruments on human rights and recommends steps for their effective implementation. It undertakes research, promotes awareness through publications, seminars, and media, and encourages the work of NGOs operating in the field of human rights.

Quasi-judicial powers 🔗

When inquiring into complaints, the NHRC enjoys the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It can summon witnesses, examine them on oath, requisition public records, and receive evidence on affidavit. It can also enter any building or place where it has reason to believe relevant documents are present, subject to procedural safeguards.

The limitation of recommendatory power 🔗

Here lies the biggest critique of the NHRC. Its recommendations are not legally binding. After an inquiry, the Commission may recommend compensation to the victim, initiation of prosecution against the guilty public servant, or grant of interim relief. It can also approach the Supreme Court or the concerned High Court for appropriate directions. But the final call rests with the government, which only has to inform the NHRC within a month about the action taken.

The Commission also cannot inquire into a matter after one year from the date on which the alleged violation occurred. Additionally, its jurisdiction over the armed forces is limited, which has been a long-standing point of concern among rights activists.

State Human Rights Commissions: the local watchdogs 🔗

A country as vast and diverse as India cannot rely solely on a central body. Chapter V of the PHRA therefore enables state governments to constitute their own State Human Rights Commissions. Most states have now done so, though a handful are still to establish or fully activate theirs.

Composition of an SHRC 🔗

An SHRC consists of a Chairperson and two Members. Post the 2019 amendment, a person who has been Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court can be appointed as Chairperson (earlier, only a former Chief Justice of a High Court was eligible). The two members include a serving or retired judge of a High Court or a District Judge with at least seven years of experience as a District Judge, and a person having knowledge of or practical experience in human rights matters.

The Chairperson and Members are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee chaired by the Chief Minister, and including the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the state Home Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition. In states with a Legislative Council, the Chairman of the Council and the Leader of Opposition in the Council are also part of the committee.

Interestingly, though the Governor appoints them, only the President of India can remove them. This is a deliberate design choice to preserve the SHRC’s independence from state-level political pressure.

Jurisdiction and limits 🔗

An SHRC can inquire into violations of human rights only in respect of subjects contained in the State List and the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. If a matter is already being inquired into by the NHRC or any other statutory commission, the SHRC cannot take it up. For the Union Territory of Delhi, human rights functions are handled directly by the NHRC, while for other UTs, the central government may confer those functions on the SHRC of a nearby state.

Human Rights Courts 🔗

An often-overlooked provision of the PHRA is the establishment of Human Rights Courts at the district level for the speedy trial of offences arising out of violations of human rights. These courts are set up by the state government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court, and a Special Public Prosecutor is designated for each. While the vision is strong, implementation has been uneven, and these courts have not taken shape uniformly across states.

Why these commissions matter 🔗

The commissions are not just paper institutions. They have intervened in a wide range of issues, from custodial deaths and manual scavenging to bonded labour, trafficking, and rights of people with disabilities. The NHRC regularly takes suo motu cognisance of media reports, such as reports of mass deaths in prisons or allegations of bonded labour in brick kilns.

They contribute to the rights framework in four important ways. First, they provide a low-cost, accessible redress mechanism for people who cannot afford prolonged litigation. Second, they push for systemic reform, not just individual compensation, by reviewing laws and policies. Third, they spread awareness through campaigns, seminars, and partnerships with NGOs. Fourth, they connect India to global human rights norms by engaging with UN mechanisms and reviewing compliance with international covenants.

The criticisms worth acknowledging 🔗

Any honest discussion of these commissions must also engage with their limitations. The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) deferred the NHRC’s A-grade accreditation for two consecutive years, citing concerns around transparency in appointments, the inclusion of police officers in human rights investigations, and inadequate gender and minority representation.

Domestically, critics point out that the recommendatory nature of the commissions’ powers weakens their deterrent effect. There are chronic vacancies in several SHRCs, and a few states have not even operationalised their commissions. The one-year limitation period for complaints is another common complaint, as many violations surface long after they occur. Budgetary and staffing constraints further limit how deeply and quickly these bodies can investigate complex cases.

The road ahead 🔗

Strengthening these institutions is not a matter of abstract reform; it is central to the health of the democracy itself. Reforms that are often proposed include granting the commissions binding powers in certain categories of violations, expanding jurisdiction over armed forces in limited contexts, mandating faster vacancy filling, and improving financial and administrative autonomy in line with the Paris Principles. The NHRC’s own modernisation through the online complaint portal and the e-HRCNet system shows that the appetite for change exists; the question is how far and how fast it can go.

In a country where the stakes of rights violations are so unevenly distributed, a strong NHRC and SHRC network is not a luxury. It is the scaffolding that holds up the constitutional promise of dignity for every individual.

What do you think? Should the recommendations of the NHRC and SHRCs be made legally binding, even at the cost of altering the current balance between the executive and these statutory bodies? And do you believe the one-year limitation on filing complaints is fair to victims whose trauma often takes years to articulate?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13233/1/the_protection_of_human_rights_act_1993.pdf
2. https://nhrc.nic.in/acts-and-rules/protection-human-rights-act-1993
3. https://nhrc.nic.in/about-the-organisation
4. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-protection-of-human-rights-amendment-bill-2019
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Human_Rights_Commission_of_India
6. https://www.nextias.com/blog/state-human-rights-commission-shrc/
7. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/state-human-rights-commission/
8. https://nhrc.nic.in/