NHRC

1. Legal foundation and constitutional context

The National Human Rights Commission, or NHRC, is a statutory body created under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It began functioning on 12 October 1993. Although the Act received presidential assent on 8 January 1994, it is deemed to have come into force on 28 September 1993. Its legal framework also provides for State Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Courts. These institutions do not form a conventional hierarchy of trial and appellate courts.

Section 2 defines human rights as rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the international covenants and enforceable by courts in India. The statutory definition is important: the NHRC’s mandate is not simply every aspiration described internationally as a human right.

Its work supports constitutional guarantees including Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. Articles 32 and 226 provide judicial remedies, whereas the NHRC supplies an additional investigative, advisory and preventive mechanism. It does not replace the Supreme Court or High Courts. The Paris Principles, endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1993, provide international standards for national human-rights institutions, emphasising independence, pluralism, adequate resources and a broad mandate.

• Prelims distinction: the NHRC is statutory, not constitutional, and was not created by a constitutional amendment.
• The Commission’s headquarters are in Delhi; the Act permits offices elsewhere with prior approval of the Central Government.

2. Composition, appointment and independence

Following the 2019 amendment, the regular composition consists of a Chairperson who has been Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge; one member who is or has been a Supreme Court judge; one member who is or has been Chief Justice of a High Court; and three members with knowledge of, or practical experience in, human rights. At least one of these three expert members must be a woman.

Seven office-holders are deemed members for specified statutory functions: the chairpersons of the National Commissions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Minorities, Women and Backward Classes; the chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights; and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. Their association does not extend to the complaint-inquiry function under Section 12(a).

The President appoints the Chairperson and members after receiving recommendations from a committee chaired by the Prime Minister. Its other members are the Lok Sabha Speaker, Union Home Minister, Leaders of Opposition in both Houses and Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman. The Rajya Sabha Chairman is not a member. Appointment of a sitting Supreme Court judge or sitting High Court Chief Justice requires consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

The term is three years or until age 70, whichever is earlier. Reappointment is allowed within the age limit. Removal for proved misbehaviour or incapacity requires a presidential reference and Supreme Court inquiry. The President can remove a member on certain separately specified grounds, including insolvency, prohibited paid employment, infirmity, a competent court’s declaration of unsound mind, or conviction and imprisonment for an offence involving moral turpitude. After leaving office, the Chairperson and members are ineligible for further employment under the Union or a State government.

3. Functions and investigative powers

Under Section 12, the NHRC may act suo motu, on a petition by a victim or someone acting on the victim’s behalf, or on a court’s direction or order. It can inquire into human-rights violations, their abetment, or negligence in preventing them by a public servant. A private wrong does not automatically become an NHRC case; the statutory connection with public responsibility must be identified.

Its preventive work includes visiting jails and other institutions under State control where people are detained or lodged for treatment, reformation or protection. It reviews constitutional and legal safeguards, examines factors including terrorism that inhibit human rights, studies treaties, promotes research and human-rights literacy, and encourages civil-society efforts. It may intervene in pending court proceedings involving human-rights allegations with the court’s approval.

During inquiries, it has specified powers of a civil court, including summoning witnesses, examining them on oath, requiring documents, receiving affidavit evidence, requisitioning public records and issuing commissions for examining witnesses or documents. These procedural powers do not make it a court capable of convicting offenders. It may use government investigative agencies subject to the statutory conditions, including consent.

After inquiry, it can recommend compensation or damages, prosecution, other suitable action and immediate interim relief. It can approach the Supreme Court or the relevant High Court for appropriate directions, orders or writs. Under the ordinary Section 18 procedure, the government or authority must forward comments, including action taken or proposed, within one month or a further period allowed by the Commission.

4. Jurisdictional limits and accountability

Section 36 bars inquiry into a matter pending before a State Human Rights Commission or another commission duly constituted under law. It also imposes a one-year limit from the date of the alleged violating act. In N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India, 2004, the Supreme Court treated this limitation as a jurisdictional restriction. Aspirants should not assume that the NHRC has a general power to condone delay.

Section 19 establishes a restricted procedure for alleged violations by members of the armed forces. The NHRC may seek a report from the Central Government and then decline to proceed or make recommendations. The Central Government must communicate action taken within three months or an extended period allowed by the Commission. Thus, saying that the NHRC has absolutely no role concerning the armed forces is incorrect.

The Commission submits annual and special reports to the Central Government and concerned State governments. These must be placed before the appropriate legislature with an action-taken memorandum and reasons for non-acceptance of recommendations. Legislative scrutiny and publication create accountability, but neither turns recommendations into judicial decrees.

5. Significance, limitations and reform priorities

The NHRC provides a relatively accessible forum for complaints concerning custodial violence, unlawful detention, bonded labour, trafficking and failures of public authorities. Its inspection, reporting and advisory functions can reveal systemic problems beyond an individual complaint. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997, the Supreme Court prescribed arrest and detention safeguards that remain important benchmarks for assessing custodial practices.

Its effectiveness is constrained by non-binding recommendations, delayed compliance, vacancies, dependence on government personnel for investigation and the restricted armed-forces procedure. A complaint body also cannot by itself remedy weak policing accountability, poor prison conditions or exclusion from essential services. Disposal figures alone therefore provide an incomplete measure of impact.

Reform priorities include timely and transparent appointments, broader representation, adequate specialist staff, greater investigative autonomy, accessible complaint systems and systematic tracking of compliance. Coordination with State commissions, legal-services authorities and civil society can improve remedies. For examination answers, distinguish expanding the Commission’s powers from ensuring effective use of its existing powers.

Previous year questions

Practice questions