Multiple Constitutional & Statutory Commissions for Vulnerable Sections: Issues & Challenges | UPSC GS-II Notes

Home
Multiple Constitutional & Statutory Commissions for Vulnerable Sections: Issues & Challenges | UPSC GS-II Notes

Multiple Constitutional & Statutory Commissions for Vulnerable Sections: Issues & Challenges

India has created several constitutional and statutory bodies for vulnerable sections, such as the National Commission for SCs, National Commission for STs, National Commission for Backward Classes, National Commission for Minorities, National Commission for Women, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and National Human Rights Commission.

These bodies reflect India’s commitment to social justice, equality, dignity and protection of vulnerable groups. However, multiplicity of commissions sometimes creates problems of overlapping jurisdiction, duplication of functions and fragmented accountability.

Issues with Multiple Commissions

Overlapping Jurisdiction
- Many vulnerable groups face intersectional discrimination.
  - Examples
    - Dalit woman facing workplace harassment — may fall within the jurisdiction — NCSC, NCW, NHRC and labour authorities.
    - Child labour involving tribal children — NCPCR, NCST, and state child commissions all have concurrent jurisdiction
    - Religious minority woman — NCM and NCW both have claims; cases drift without resolution
  - This creates confusion about which body should act.
- Overlapping jurisdiction leads to forum shopping — complainants file with multiple bodies hoping for action
- Contradictory Recommendations — Multiple commissions may examine the same issue from different identity-based or rights-based perspectives and give different recommendations.
- Wastage of time and resources in addressing duplicate complaints
Duplication of Functions
- Different commissions may examine similar complaints, conduct similar inquiries, issue similar notices and recommend similar action.
- This leads to wastage of administrative resources and duplication of effort.
  - Multiple commissions independently conduct awareness campaigns on same issues — women’s rights, child protection, SC/ST atrocities — without coordination
  - Suo motu cognisance of the same incident taken by NHRC, NCW, NCSC simultaneously — parallel investigations, conflicting findings
  - Annual reports to Parliament cover overlapping ground — no integrated national picture of vulnerable section welfare
  - Separate research wings in each commission study identical phenomena — child marriage studied by NCPCR, NCW, NCST, and NHRC independently
  - Wasteful duplication of legal, administrative, and investigative resources
Resource Fragmentation
- Each commission maintains separate secretariat, infrastructure, staff cadre — high fixed costs multiplied across bodies
- Chronic underfunding of smaller commissions: NCM, NCBC, and disability commission operate with skeletal staff relative to mandate
- NHRC is well-resourced with hundreds of staff ; NCM functions with fraction of that — institutional inequality among commissions
- Fragmented budgets mean no commission has adequate resources to fulfil its mandate fully
- Opportunity cost: same funds concentrated in fewer, stronger bodies could achieve more
Toothlessness — Shared Structural Weakness
- Most commissions are recommendatory bodies only — cannot enforce orders, cannot punish non-compliance
- States routinely ignore commission recommendations — no automatic legal consequence
- NHRC recommendations on custodial deaths, encounter killings — states submit ATRs (Action Taken Reports) years later, often superficial
- No contempt power — unlike courts, commissions cannot penalise defiance
- Multiplying toothless bodies multiplies symbolic gestures, not protection
  - Core irony: more commissions → more recommendations → more ignored recommendations
Fragmented Response
- Since each commission focuses on a specific identity group, broader structural issues may get divided across institutions.
  - For example, bonded labour among tribal women may involve caste, tribe, gender, labour rights and poverty, but no single body may address the issue holistically.
Delayed Redressal
- When complaints move between different institutions, victims may face procedural delays.
- Instead of quick justice, the complainant may get trapped in institutional confusion.
Weak Accountability
- When multiple bodies are involved, responsibility becomes diffused.
- Each institution may assume that another body is handling the matter, weakening follow-up and enforcement.
Coordination Costs
- No formal inter-commission mechanism — different administrative ministries, no common platform
- Delayed justice due to inter-commission consultations and referrals
- Intersectional victims fall through institutional gaps
  - No joint investigation protocols for intersectional cases
  - No shared database of complaints, perpetrators, or systemic violations
  - Intersectional identities fall through gaps: A disabled Dalit woman — NCSC, NCW, and disability commission each address one dimension; none addresses the whole person
  - Inter-commission turf competition reported in several high-profile cases — delays justice

Thus, multiplicity of commissions, though created for protecting vulnerable sections, often results in fragmented accountability, overlapping jurisdiction, duplication of work and conflicting recommendations. This creates confusion for complainants, delays redressal and weakens the overall effectiveness of social justice institutions.

Sample UPSC Mains Questions

Q1.India has created multiple constitutional and statutory commissions to protect vulnerable sections. While specialised institutions strengthen representation, they also create governance challenges. Discuss.

(250 words, 15 Marks)

Q2.Multiplicity of commissions has resulted in overlapping jurisdiction and fragmented accountability rather than effective protection of vulnerable groups. Examine.

(150 words, 10 Marks)

Trending Today

✍️ Curated by InclusiveIAS Editorial Team

At InclusiveIAS, our editorial team is led by experts who have successfully cleared multiple stages of the UPSC Civil Services Examination, including Mains and Interview. With deep insights into the demands of the exam, we focus on crafting content that is accurate, exam-relevant, and easy to grasp.

Whether it’s Polity, Current Affairs, GS papers, or Optional subjects, our notes are designed to:

Break down complex topics into simple, structured points
Align strictly with the UPSC syllabus and PYQ trends
Save your time by offering crisp yet comprehensive coverage
Help you score more with smart presentation, keywords, and examples

🟢 Every article, note, and test is not just written—but carefully edited to ensure it helps you study faster, revise better, and write answers like a topper.