Understanding the Nature and Functions of National Human Rights Institutions

When human rights violations occur, who stands between the individual and the state? National human rights institutions serve as independent watchdogs that monitor, promote, and protect fundamental freedoms within countries. Unlike courts that deliver binding judgments or legislatures that create laws, these bodies occupy a distinct middle ground-advising governments, investigating complaints, and bridging the gap between international human rights standards and domestic implementation.

What are national human rights institutions? 🔗

National human rights institutions are independent state-based institutions with the responsibility to protect and promote human rights within a country. Established by governments through constitutional provisions or legislation, these bodies operate with a degree of autonomy that allows them to critique state actions while maintaining cooperative relationships with authorities.

The defining characteristic of NHRIs is their administrative nature. They possess advisory authority rather than judicial power. This means they cannot issue legally binding decisions or punish violators directly. Instead, they make recommendations to governments, investigate complaints, and work to create systemic change through persuasion and public pressure.

In India, the National Human Rights Commission was established on October 12, 1993, under the Protection of Human Rights Act. This law defines human rights as rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants and enforceable by Indian courts.

International standards: the Paris Principles 🔗

Not all human rights institutions are created equal. To ensure credibility and effectiveness, the international community developed a framework known as the Paris Principles. These standards were adopted at the first International Workshop on National Institutions in Paris in October 1991 and later endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1993.

The Paris Principles establish requirements across several key areas, including broad mandates that cover all human rights, independence from government control enshrined in law, pluralism in composition reflecting diverse social forces, adequate powers to investigate and gather evidence, sufficient resources for effective functioning, cooperative work with civil society, and international engagement with UN human rights mechanisms.

India’s NHRC was established in conformity with these principles. However, the commission has faced challenges in maintaining full compliance. In 2024, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions deferred the NHRC’s accreditation for the second consecutive year, citing concerns about transparency in appointments, inclusion of police officers in investigations, and inadequate representation of women and minorities.

Core functions of national human rights institutions 🔗

National human rights institutions perform multiple interconnected roles that collectively strengthen human rights protection within a country.

Making recommendations to government 🔗

One of the primary functions is providing advisory opinions to government bodies. NHRIs submit opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports on any matters concerning the promotion and protection of human rights to government, parliament, and other competent authorities. These recommendations may relate to legislation, regulations, policies, or specific human rights situations.

The NHRC studies treaties and international instruments on human rights and makes recommendations to the government for their effective implementation. This function ensures that draft legislation aligns with international human rights standards that India has accepted. The commission reviews bills referred by parliamentary committees and provides expert input on human rights implications.

Promoting harmonization with international standards 🔗

National human rights institutions serve as bridges between international human rights law and domestic implementation. They work to promote and ensure the harmonization of national legislation, regulations and practices with international human rights instruments to which the state is a party.

This involves monitoring how well domestic laws comply with treaties India has ratified, identifying gaps between international obligations and national practice, and proposing legislative reforms to address deficiencies. The NHRC has contributed to important legislation including laws on sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rights of persons with disabilities.

Encouraging treaty ratification 🔗

Beyond implementing existing commitments, NHRIs actively encourage governments to expand their human rights obligations. They encourage ratification of international instruments or accession to those instruments, and ensure their implementation.

The NHRC has pursued ratification of various international human rights instruments with the Indian government. India has ratified major treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1979, though it has not ratified several others including the Convention Against Torture.

Contributing to international reporting procedures 🔗

When countries ratify human rights treaties, they commit to submitting periodic reports to UN treaty monitoring bodies. National human rights institutions contribute to the reports which states are required to submit to UN bodies and committees, providing independent perspectives that complement government submissions.

The NHRC regularly submits written contributions, delivers oral interventions, and engages in interactive dialogues at the UN Human Rights Council, thereby contributing to global human rights discourse. These contributions often highlight issues that government reports may downplay or omit, providing treaty bodies with a more complete picture of the human rights situation.

Assisting in human rights education 🔗

Promoting awareness and understanding of human rights is essential for creating a culture where rights are respected. NHRIs undertake education initiatives to spread knowledge about human rights among various sections of society.

The NHRC works to spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of safeguards available for protection of these rights through publications, media, seminars, and training programs. The commission conducts regular training programs through partnerships with credible NGOs across various states, addressing diverse human rights issues at the grassroots level.

Cooperating with international and regional bodies 🔗

National human rights institutions do not work in isolation. Effective human rights protection requires engagement with the global human rights architecture. NHRIs participate in international forums, coordinate with regional human rights mechanisms, and share best practices with institutions in other countries.

India’s NHRC is an active member of the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and serves on its Governance Committee. The commission successfully hosted the 28th APF Annual Meeting in September 2023 in New Delhi, bringing together representatives from NHRIs, civil society, governments, and UN agencies to discuss promoting human rights across the Asia-Pacific region.

The NHRC also holds accreditation with the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, which coordinates NHRI engagement with UN bodies and provides capacity-building support. This international cooperation strengthens the commission’s ability to learn from global best practices and contribute Indian perspectives to evolving human rights norms.

The supplementary nature of national human rights institutions 🔗

It is crucial to understand what NHRIs are not. They do not replace courts, which have the power to issue binding judgments and provide legal remedies. They do not replace legislatures, which create laws. They do not replace executive agencies responsible for implementing policies.

Instead, national human rights institutions supplement these traditional branches of government by filling gaps in the human rights protection system. They can address systemic issues that individual court cases might not resolve. They can investigate matters more quickly and informally than judicial proceedings. They can provide expertise on human rights that generalist government agencies may lack.

The functions of the commission are mainly recommendatory in nature, with no power to punish violators or award monetary relief to victims. However, this limitation does not render NHRIs powerless. Their influence comes from moral authority, public visibility, expertise, and the government’s interest in maintaining credibility both domestically and internationally.

When the NHRC issues a recommendation, governments often comply because ignoring it would damage their reputation. Media attention to commission findings creates public pressure. International scrutiny through UN mechanisms reinforces domestic recommendations. Over time, these soft power mechanisms can drive significant policy changes.

Challenges facing national human rights institutions 🔗

Despite their important role, NHRIs face several obstacles that can limit their effectiveness. Resource constraints prevent thorough investigation of all complaints. India’s NHRC receives thousands of complaints annually but lacks sufficient staff and funding to address them all adequately.

The recommendatory nature of their powers means governments can simply ignore their findings. Unlike court orders, NHRC recommendations carry no legal obligation for compliance. This creates frustration when serious violations are documented but no meaningful action follows.

Questions about independence persist. Because governments appoint commission members and provide funding, concerns about political interference arise. The transparency of appointment processes and the composition of the institution significantly impact credibility.

Jurisdictional limitations also constrain NHRIs. The NHRC has limited jurisdiction over cases involving armed forces and cannot act when human rights violations involve private parties. These restrictions exclude significant areas where violations commonly occur.

What do you think? Can national human rights institutions genuinely hold governments accountable when those same governments appoint their members and control their budgets? How can the balance between independence and state funding be better managed to strengthen these institutions?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_human_rights_institution
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Human_Rights_Commission_of_India
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Principles_(human_rights_standards)
4. https://ganhri.org/paris-principles/
5. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/principles-relating-status-national-institutions-paris
6. https://nhrc.nic.in/vision-&-mission
7. https://nhrc.nic.in/international-cooperation
8. https://drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-institutions/national-human-rights-commission-nhrc
9. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/national-human-rights-commission/