Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India,…

Question

Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.

Ghissu Editorial · Accepted Answer

Human Rights Commissions fail the powerful test because the 1993 Act makes their findings advisory, excludes armed forces inquiries, bars complaints older than a year and leaves them dependent on deputed police and the executive. GANHRI deferred the NHRC's re-accreditation in 2023 over such concerns.

**Introduction**

The NHRC and State commissions, created by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, have achievements such as the Best Bakery trial transfer (2004) and encounter guidelines. Yet GANHRI's deferral of NHRC re-accreditation in 2023 shows their weakness against the powerful.

**Structural Limitations Written into the 1993 Act**

1. **Recommendatory power**: Section 18 lets them only recommend prosecution or relief; governments can reject the advice.
2. **Armed forces carve-out**: Section 19 limits the NHRC to seeking a Union report on armed forces complaints, even in AFSPA areas.
3. **One-year bar**: Section 36(2) bars inquiry into violations older than a year.
4. **Executive-shaped composition**: A PM-led selection panel and reappointment since 2019 make them post-retirement berths.

**Practical Limitations Before the Mighty**

SKETCH: flow | Why the Powerful Escape
- Complaint filed
- Police-led probe
- Advice only
- Government may ignore
- Impunity persists

1. **Compensation as closure**: The Punjab mass cremations case (1996 reference) ended in compensation, not culpability.
2. **Vacancies and dependence**: Headless State commissions and Home Ministry budgets erode independence.
3. **Delayed scrutiny**: Annual reports reach Parliament late and are rarely debated, so ignoring advice costs nothing.

**Way Forward**

1. **Binding orders with appeal**: Make recommendations binding unless challenged in the High Court.
2. **Own investigation wing**: Create an independent cadre and remove the one-year bar and armed forces carve-out.
3. **Plural appointments**: Follow the Paris Principles with civil society members and transparent selection.

**Conclusion**

Commissions that only advise, borrow investigators and depend on the executive cannot confront it. Teeth, independence and pluralism would make them genuine guardians of Article 21 and accountable institutions under SDG 16.

Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.

Model answer

Practise this question

Statutory Bodies6 questions

Ghissu