Newsletter- Polity

Context of the News

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recently took cognisance of allegations involving the use of children in a protest in Mumbai. It directed an investigation into possible violations of child rights.

The incident highlights the NHRC’s role in protecting vulnerable groups and addressing human rights violations. It also raises questions about the Commission’s investigative powers, institutional independence and ability to ensure accountability.

The NHRC’s accreditation review by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) has further brought its institutional autonomy and compliance with international standards into focus.

Background: Evolution of the NHRC

The protection of human rights is essential for a democratic society governed by the Constitution and the rule of law.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 established the NHRC as a statutory body.
The Commission was established on 12 October 1993.
Its mandate includes protecting and promoting rights relating to life, liberty, equality and human dignity.
The Paris Principles, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993, provide international standards for the status and functioning of national human rights institutions.

The NHRC serves as an institutional mechanism for examining human rights violations, reviewing safeguards and recommending corrective action.

What Is the National Human Rights Commission?

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a statutory body established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It investigates alleged human rights violations and recommends measures to protect individuals from abuse.

Composition of the NHRC

Under Section 3 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission has the following composition:

Category	Composition
Chairperson	A person who has been the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court
Judicial Members	One serving or former Supreme Court Judge and one serving or former Chief Justice of a High Court
Human Rights Experts	Three members with knowledge of or practical experience in human rights, including at least one woman
Deemed Members	Seven heads of specified national commissions and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Deemed members are members by virtue of holding another specified office. They participate in the NHRC’s work as provided under the Act.

Appointment of the Chairperson and Members

The President of India appoints the NHRC Chairperson and members on the recommendation of a six-member committee headed by the Prime Minister.

The committee includes:

The Prime Minister as Chairperson.
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
The Union Home Minister.
The Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
The Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Tenure

The Chairperson and members hold office for three years or until they attain 70 years of age, whichever is earlier.
They are eligible for reappointment, subject to the provisions of the Act.

Functions and Powers of the NHRC

The NHRC performs investigative, advisory, monitoring and promotional functions.

Its major functions include:

Investigating human rights violations: It may inquire into complaints of violations or negligence by public servants in preventing such violations.
Intervening in court proceedings: It may intervene in proceedings involving allegations of human rights violations, with the court’s approval.
Inspecting institutions: It can visit jails and other institutions under state control to study living conditions and make recommendations.
Reviewing legal safeguards: It examines constitutional and legal protections for human rights and recommends improvements.
Promoting awareness: It undertakes research, supports human rights education and encourages public awareness.
Recommending relief: It may recommend compensation, prosecution or other corrective action where appropriate.

Powers during an inquiry: Under Section 13 of the Act, the NHRC has powers similar to those of a civil court for specified purposes. These include summoning witnesses, requiring documents and receiving evidence on affidavits.

However, these powers do not make the NHRC equivalent to a regular criminal court. Its recommendations generally do not have the same binding force as a judicial order.

What Are the Challenges Associated with the NHRC?

Despite its statutory mandate, the NHRC faces several structural and operational challenges that can limit its effectiveness.

1. Limited Enforcement Powers

The NHRC’s recommendations are generally advisory and non-binding.

It cannot independently convict or sentence a person for a human rights violation.
The implementation of its recommendations depends on the action taken by the concerned authorities.
Delays or non-compliance can weaken the relief available to victims.

As a result, critics sometimes describe the NHRC as a “toothless tiger” because its ability to recommend action is stronger than its ability to enforce it.

2. Concerns over Institutional Independence

Institutional independence means the ability of an organisation to perform its duties without improper external influence.

The executive plays a significant role in the appointment process.
Dependence on government authorities for information, cooperation and implementation can create concerns about impartiality.
Transparent appointments and safeguards against interference are essential for public confidence.

3. Lack of Diversity and Representation

The Paris Principles emphasise pluralism, which means that a national human rights institution should reflect diverse social perspectives and relevant expertise.

Limited representation of women, minorities and civil society can weaken public trust.
Broader participation can improve the Commission’s understanding of the concerns faced by vulnerable communities.
Transparent selection procedures can help improve diversity and credibility.

4. GANHRI Accreditation Concerns

GANHRI (Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions) is the international network that coordinates the accreditation of national human rights institutions against the Paris Principles.

The NHRC’s accreditation review has become a major governance concern.

In March 2025, GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation recommended downgrading India’s NHRC from ‘A’ status to ‘B’ status.
The concerns included institutional independence, pluralism in appointments and compliance with international standards.
The NHRC’s appeal was rejected in December 2025.
The final review was deferred to November 2026. As of October 2026, the proposed downgrade had not been finalised. Amnesty International+1

The difference between the two accreditation categories is important:

Feature	A Status	B Status
Compliance	Fully compliant with the Paris Principles	Partially compliant
International participation	Independent participation rights in specified UN human rights forums	More limited participation rights
GANHRI governance	Eligible to vote and hold governance positions	Cannot vote or hold governance positions

GANHRI

A change in accreditation does not automatically abolish the NHRC or remove its statutory powers. However, it can affect its international standing and participation.

5. Investigative Constraints

The NHRC’s effectiveness also depends on the quality and independence of investigations.

Its reliance on police personnel and government investigative agencies can create concerns about conflicts of interest.
Investigations into alleged custodial violence or police misconduct require particular safeguards against institutional bias.
Shortages of specialised personnel and investigative resources can delay inquiries.

An independent and professionally trained investigation mechanism would help improve the credibility of its findings.

6. Limited Jurisdiction

The Protection of Human Rights Act imposes certain restrictions on the NHRC’s jurisdiction.

One-year limitation: Under Section 36(2), the Commission cannot inquire into a matter after one year from the date on which the alleged human rights violation occurred.
Armed forces: Section 19 establishes a special procedure for complaints involving the armed forces. The Commission seeks a report from the Central Government and then decides whether to proceed with the complaint or make recommendations.
Concurrent proceedings: Section 36(1) restricts the Commission from inquiring into matters that are pending before a State Commission or another commission duly constituted under law.

These restrictions can limit the Commission’s ability to address delayed complaints and certain complex cases.

What Measures Can Strengthen the NHRC?

Strengthening the NHRC requires legal reforms, institutional safeguards and better implementation of its recommendations.

1. Strengthen Enforcement Mechanisms

The government should review the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to improve compliance with the NHRC’s recommendations.

Establish clear timelines for authorities to respond to recommendations.
Require reasoned explanations when recommendations are rejected or not implemented.
Strengthen parliamentary and administrative oversight of compliance.

2. Ensure Institutional Independence

The NHRC must be able to function impartially, particularly when investigating alleged violations involving public authorities.

Introduce a transparent, merit-based appointment process.
Protect its administrative and financial autonomy.
Ensure that members are selected on the basis of competence, integrity and human rights experience.

3. Improve Diversity and Inclusivity

The Commission should reflect India’s social diversity and include a wider range of perspectives.

Improve representation of women and diverse social groups.
Encourage participation by human rights experts and civil society.
Make selection procedures more transparent and inclusive.

4. Strengthen Investigative Capacity

Independent investigations are essential for establishing facts and ensuring accountability.

Develop specialised investigation teams with adequate training.
Strengthen forensic, digital and evidence-gathering capabilities.
Establish safeguards against conflicts of interest in cases involving police misconduct or custodial violence.

5. Review Jurisdictional Limitations

Legal reforms should examine whether existing restrictions prevent timely and effective redressal.

Review the one-year limitation period under Section 36(2).
Examine ways to strengthen oversight of alleged violations involving the armed forces while respecting the statutory framework.
Improve coordination between the NHRC, State Human Rights Commissions and other relevant institutions.

6. Improve Resources and Case Management

Adequate resources are essential for timely investigations and effective grievance redressal.

Provide sufficient funding and skilled personnel.
Introduce digital case-management systems to track complaints and deadlines.
Improve coordination between divisions and monitor government action on recommendations.
Use technology to reduce pendency and improve transparency.

7. Restore International Credibility

The NHRC should address the concerns raised during the GANHRI accreditation review.

Align institutional practices more closely with the Paris Principles.
Strengthen pluralism, independence and accountability.
Publish transparent reports on the implementation of recommendations and institutional reforms.

Prelims Focus: High-Value Facts

The following facts are based on the Protection of Human Rights Act and official NHRC and GANHRI materials.

Prelims fact	Key information
Establishment	12 October 1993
Governing law	Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
Nature	Statutory body
Definition of human rights	Rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity, as defined under Section 2(1)(d)
Composition	Chairperson, five full-time members and seven deemed members
Appointment	President of India, on the recommendation of a six-member committee
Tenure	Three years or until 70 years of age, whichever is earlier
Inquiry powers	Section 13
Armed forces procedure	Section 19
Restriction on inquiry	Section 36
One-year limitation	Section 36(2)
International standards	Paris Principles
Accreditation body	Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI)

Paris Principles: Remember These Four Ideas

Independence: Protection against undue external interference.
Broad mandate: Authority to promote and protect human rights.
Pluralism: Diversity in membership and perspectives.
Adequate resources: Sufficient funding, personnel and institutional capacity.

Conclusion / Way Forward

Strengthening the NHRC through greater independence, effective investigations, inclusive appointments and stronger implementation mechanisms is essential for protecting human dignity and constitutional values.

Prelims Check: UPSC CSE Practice Questions

Attempt the following questions before checking the answer key.

Question 1

With reference to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), consider the following statements:

It is a constitutional body established under the Constitution of India.
It can exercise certain powers of a civil court while conducting an inquiry.
Its recommendations are generally binding on the concerned government or authority.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(d) 2 and 3 only

Question 2

With reference to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, consider the following pairs:

Provision	Subject
1. Section 13	Powers relating to inquiries
2. Section 19	Procedure concerning armed forces
3. Section 36(2)	Restriction relating to the period for inquiry

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two

(d) None

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the accreditation of National Human Rights Institutions:

The Paris Principles emphasise independence and pluralism.
An institution with ‘B’ status is considered fully compliant with the Paris Principles.
GANHRI coordinates the accreditation process for national human rights institutions.
A change in accreditation status automatically repeals the institution’s domestic enabling legislation.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 3 only

(b) 1, 2 and 3 only

(d) 1, 3 and 4 only

Answer Key and Explanations

Answers are provided only after all three questions, as requested.

Question 1 — Correct answer: (b) 2 only

Statement 1 is incorrect: The NHRC is a statutory body established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, not directly under the Constitution.
Statement 2 is correct: Section 13 grants specified powers similar to those of a civil court for inquiry-related purposes.
Statement 3 is incorrect: The NHRC’s recommendations are generally advisory and do not automatically bind the concerned authority.

Question 2 — Correct answer: (c) All three

Pair 1 is correct: Section 13 deals with the Commission’s powers relating to inquiries.
Pair 2 is correct: Section 19 prescribes the special procedure for complaints involving the armed forces.
Pair 3 is correct: Section 36(2) bars the Commission from inquiring into a matter after one year from the date of the alleged human rights violation.

Question 3 — Correct answer: (a) 1 and 3 only

Statement 1 is correct: The Paris Principles emphasise independence, pluralism, a broad mandate and adequate resources.
Statement 2 is incorrect: ‘B’ status denotes partial compliance, whereas ‘A’ status denotes full compliance.
Statement 3 is correct: GANHRI coordinates the international accreditation framework for national human rights institutions.
Statement 4 is incorrect: Accreditation is an international assessment; a change in status does not automatically repeal an institution’s domestic law.

“The true measure of a democracy lies in how effectively it protects the dignity and rights of every individual.”