Empowering Human Rights in India: The National Human Rights Commission

Every democracy needs a mechanism that stands between the citizen and the state – a body citizens can turn to when their fundamental rights are violated by those in power. In India, that body is the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Established in 1993, it operates as a statutory watchdog with the mandate to protect rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity. Understanding how the NHRC works – its structure, powers, functions, and limitations – is essential for any student of Indian law.

Origin and legal foundation 🔗

The NHRC was constituted on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA), which came into force with retrospective effect from 28 September 1993. The Act was later amended in 2006 and again in 2019. India enacted this legislation partly in response to international obligations – specifically the Paris Principles of 1991, which the United Nations General Assembly endorsed in December 1993. These principles set the minimum standards – independence, pluralism, adequate investigative powers, and a broad mandate – that national human rights institutions must meet to be considered credible.

It is important to note what the NHRC is not. It is a statutory body, not a constitutional one. This means it draws its authority from an Act of Parliament, not from the Constitution of India directly. It is also a quasi-judicial body – it exercises functions similar to a court but is not a court itself. Section 2(d) of the PHRA 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.

Composition of the NHRC 🔗

The NHRC consists of a Chairperson and several members – both full-time and ex-officio. After the 2019 amendment, the structure is as follows:

Full-time members: The Chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court. Other members include a sitting or retired Supreme Court judge, a sitting or retired Chief Justice of a High Court, and three additional members (at least one of whom must be a woman) with knowledge or practical experience in human rights.

Ex-officio members: Seven ex-officio members serve on the Commission, comprising the Chairpersons of various national commissions – including the National Commission for Women, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Backward Classes, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights – and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

Appointments are made by the President of India on the recommendation of a six-member committee headed by the Prime Minister, and also including the Union Home Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and others. The tenure is three years or until the age of 70, whichever comes earlier. Once their term ends, members cannot seek further employment with the Central or State governments. The President can remove a member on grounds such as insolvency, proven misbehaviour, or physical or mental incapacity.

Functions of the NHRC 🔗

Section 12 of the PHRA lays out the NHRC’s mandate in detail. Its core functions include:

Inquiry into human rights violations 🔗

The NHRC can investigate complaints of violations of human rights or negligence in preventing such violations by public servants. Crucially, it can act suo motu – meaning it can take up cases on its own initiative, without waiting for a formal complaint. This power allows the Commission to act proactively on reported incidents, even when victims themselves have not approached it. However, the NHRC cannot take up matters older than one year from the date of the alleged violation.

Intervention in judicial proceedings 🔗

The NHRC has the authority to intervene in any ongoing court case that involves allegations of human rights violations, subject to the court’s prior approval. This is a significant power – it allows the Commission to place its expertise and perspective before courts in cases that have broader human rights implications.

Prison visits and institutional inspections 🔗

The NHRC can visit any prison or institution under state government control to inspect the living conditions of inmates and make recommendations to concerned authorities. This is an important safeguard against custodial abuse and substandard detention conditions.

Study of international treaties 🔗

The Commission reviews international human rights instruments and treaties and recommends how they should be implemented within India’s domestic legal framework. This function is exclusive to the NHRC – State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) do not share this power.

Research, education, and awareness 🔗

The NHRC undertakes research in human rights and actively promotes human rights literacy through seminars, workshops, publications, and media campaigns. This educational role is as important as its adjudicatory one – a society informed of its rights is better equipped to defend them.

Powers of the NHRC 🔗

The Commission exercises powers equivalent to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These powers include ordering production of documents, receiving evidence through affidavits, requisitioning public records, issuing commissions for examination of witnesses, and using the services of any Central or State government investigating agency. The NHRC also has its own investigation team headed by a Director General of Police.

When it concludes an inquiry, the NHRC can recommend that the relevant government pay compensation to the victim, initiate prosecution of the offender, or take corrective action. It can also recommend interim relief at any stage of an inquiry – an important provision introduced through the amendment process.

How to file a complaint with the NHRC 🔗

Any Indian citizen who believes their human rights have been violated can approach the NHRC. There are no fees involved. Complaints can be filed online through the NHRC’s official portal, by post, or in person. The Commission does not entertain anonymous or pseudonymous complaints, frivolous petitions, matters older than one year, or service matters that fall outside its jurisdiction. Once a complaint is registered, the NHRC may call for a report from the relevant government, direct its investigation team to probe the matter, or issue notices to the parties involved.

The NHRC and civil society 🔗

The NHRC’s mandate explicitly includes collaboration with non-governmental organisations working in the field of human rights. Civil society groups play a crucial role in bringing violations to the Commission’s attention, particularly in remote or underserved areas where victims may lack the resources or awareness to file complaints themselves. Seminars and workshops co-organised with NGOs also help spread human rights literacy at the grassroots level. However, as noted by international observers, the relationship between the NHRC and civil society has been criticised for lacking genuine dialogue and follow-up, particularly since 2014.

Limitations and criticisms 🔗

For all its significance, the NHRC has real structural and functional limitations that are worth understanding honestly.

Recommendatory nature 🔗

The NHRC’s most significant constraint is that its functions are largely recommendatory. It cannot enforce its decisions, punish violators, or compel compliance from governments. Former Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee once called it “India’s teasing illusion” precisely because of this gap between its promise and its power. Governments can – and often do – reject or only partially comply with NHRC recommendations.

Limited jurisdiction over armed forces 🔗

The NHRC’s powers with respect to violations by the armed forces are heavily restricted. It can only seek a report from the Ministry of Defence; it cannot independently investigate such violations. This is a significant limitation given allegations of human rights abuses in conflict zones.

One-year time bar 🔗

Complaints must be filed within one year of the alleged violation. This means a large number of legitimate grievances – particularly from marginalised communities with limited legal awareness – go unaddressed simply because the deadline is missed.

GANHRI accreditation concerns 🔗

In a significant development, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) deferred the NHRC’s accreditation for the second consecutive year in 2024. GANHRI – a UN-affiliated body – cited concerns about the lack of transparency in member appointments, inadequate gender and minority representation, and the use of police officers in human rights investigations. If India were to lose its ‘A’ status entirely, the NHRC would lose voting rights at the UN Human Rights Council, significantly affecting India’s standing in global human rights forums. Human Rights Watch and other organisations have also pointed to the NHRC’s failure to respond adequately to ethnic violence in Manipur, communal incidents in Haryana, and violations during the 2024 farmers’ protests.

The road ahead: reforming the NHRC 🔗

Experts and international bodies broadly agree on what reforms are needed. Making the appointment process more transparent and inclusive, ensuring better representation of women and minorities in the Commission’s composition, granting the NHRC enforcement powers (or at least a stronger compliance mechanism), extending the one-year complaint window, and building an independent investigative cadre – rather than relying on government agencies – are among the most frequently cited reforms. The NHRC stands at a critical juncture: it has the legislative foundation and institutional history to be a genuine guardian of rights, but bridging the gap between its mandate and its effectiveness requires political will and structural reform.

What do you think? Given that the NHRC can only make recommendations and cannot enforce them, does a human rights body without binding powers truly protect citizens – or does it merely create the appearance of protection? And should the appointment of NHRC members be handed over to an independent body entirely free from executive influence, to ensure real independence?

References

1. https://nhrc.nic.in/paris-principles
2. https://ganhri.org/paris-principles/
3. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.30-Issue10/Ser-1/H3010016873.pdf
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Human_Rights_Commission_of_India
5. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/national-human-rights-commission/
6. https://www.drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-institutions/national-human-rights-commission-nhrc
7. https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/india-hrcommission.html
8. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/nhrc-and-associated-challenges
9. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/09/rights-groups-raise-concerns-over-indias-national-human-rights-commissions-record
10. https://www.outlookindia.com/national/why-nhrc-indias-accreditation-has-been-deferred-by-un-backed-body-for-2-years-in-a-row
11. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/27/joint-letter-ganhri-regarding-review-accreditation-status-national-human-rights