New
Latest Articles
InclusiveIAS
.

National Human Rights Commission(NHRC)- Mandate, Significance, Challenges and Way forward

  • Home
  • National Human Rights Commission(NHRC)- Mandate, Significance, Challenges and Way forward
Shape Image One

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

The National Human Rights Commission is a statutory and quasi-judicial body established on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It protects rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants and enforceable by Indian courts.

Mandate

The NHRC’s mandate is to protect and promote human rights in India, ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions and laws. It investigates human rights violations and negligence by public servants, intervenes in court proceedings involving such violations, and monitors the conditions in prisons and other institutions.

  • Inquiry and Investigation: 
    • The NHRC investigates human rights violations and negligence in preventing such violations by public servants, either on its own initiative or upon a petition.
    • It can intervene in court proceedings involving human rights violations, with approval of the court.
    • It undertakes visits to jails and other institutions under government control to monitor conditions.
  • Promotion and Awareness:
    • The NHRC promotes human rights awareness through educational programs, seminars, and other outreach initiatives. 
    • It encourages NGOs and institutions working in human rights to promote awareness. 
    • It studies international human rights treaties and recommends their effective implementation. 
  • Research and Recommendations:
    • The NHRC undertakes and promotes research in the field of human rights. 
    • It reviews safeguards for human rights under the Constitution and recommends measures for their effective implementation. 
    • It can recommend compensation or prosecution against guilty public servants and may approach the Supreme Court or High Court for directions. 
  • Other Key Functions:
    • The NHRC can requisition public records and copies thereof from courts or offices. 
    • It submits annual reports to the Central and State governments. 
    • It monitors the functioning of mental hospitals and protection homes under Supreme Court remit.

Significance of NHRC

  • Watchdog Against Power Abuse
    • It investigates violations of human rights or negligence by public servants in preventing such violations. It can take up cases suo motu (on its own initiative) or based on petitions 
  • Scrutiny
    • The NHRC subjects police and executive action to institutional scrutiny outside the ordinary departmental hierarchy.
  • Accessible grievance redressal
    • Victims can approach the Commission without following the complex and expensive procedures associated with regular litigation.
      • The NHRC provides a national-level complaint forum that is less formal, less expensive, and more accessible than direct judicial remedies. 
      • For marginalised communities — Dalits, tribal persons, minority members, women in custody — who cannot afford litigation, the NHRC represents an accessible institutional avenue for seeking accountability from the state. 
  • Voice for vulnerable groups
    • Suo motu cognisance gives visibility to violations affecting victims who lack resources, awareness or political influence.
      • The NHRC’s power to take up cases independently — without waiting for a complaint — is particularly significant for violations that go unreported due to victims’ fear, lack of awareness, or inaccessibility. 
      • Suo motu cognisance of atrocity incidents, custodial deaths reported in media, and institutional conditions has enabled the NHRC to intervene where formal complaint mechanisms have not been triggered. 
  • Accountability of public officials
    • Its inquiries expose negligence, compel authorities to explain their conduct and create pressure for disciplinary and criminal action.
  • Relief without prolonged litigation
    • Recommendations for compensation and interim relief provide victims with a comparatively quicker form of redress.
  • Preventive role
    • Inspections, advisories and institutional recommendations help prevent recurring violations instead of addressing only individual complaints.
  • Policy and Legislative Influence
    • It advises the government on policy reforms and reviews existing laws to ensure they align with human rights standards. It has been instrumental in shaping policies on issues like custodial deaths, bonded labor, and manual scavenging 
  • Systemic reforms
    • Research and thematic inquiries identify structural weaknesses in policing, prisons, mental-health institutions and welfare administration.
  • Human-rights mainstreaming
    • The NHRC integrates human-rights standards into law enforcement, healthcare, education, labour administration and development policies.
  • Bridge between State and civil society
    • It provides a platform for government authorities, experts, NGOs and human-rights defenders to discuss violations and reforms.
  • Strengthening constitutional governance
    • By protecting life, liberty, equality and dignity, the NHRC reinforces the rule of law, accountable government and constitutional morality.
  • Human rights literacy and awareness 
    • The NHRC’s educational programmes, workshops, and publications have contributed to building human rights consciousness among government officials, police personnel, civil society organisations, and citizens. 
    • This awareness function — less visible than enforcement — is foundational to the long-term cultural shift that genuine human rights protection requires.

Challenges Faced by NHRC

  • Non-binding recommendations
    • Governments can reject, delay or inadequately implement NHRC recommendations. The Commission lacks direct enforcement powers.
      • It has no power to punish the culprits. The NHRC is not empowered to finally dispose of cases, it only has the power to make recommendations based on the investigation, and to make the situation even worse the recommendations made by the NHRC are not binding upon the concerned government or body.
  • Jurisdictional Restrictions
    • Armed Forces: The Commission cannot independently investigate allegations against members of the armed forces; it can only seek a report from the Central Government.
    • In cases where Army or paramilitary forces are involved, the state has invoked considerations of national security and safeguarding the morale of the forces as an additional justification for not probing encounter deaths. This becomes a major handicap for the Commission in states under AFSPA or the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act such as Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur where allegations of human rights violations are common.
    • One-Year Rule: It is barred from taking up complaints filed more than one year after the alleged violation, which excludes many cases that surface late due to fear or lack of resources
  • Lack of Independent Investigation
    • The NHRC lacks its own independent investigative cadre and relies on police officers seconded from the government. This practice is often criticized for potential bias, as officials may be investigating the very government agencies they belong to 
      • GANHRI has expressed concern regarding the appointment of police officials to conduct human rights investigations.
      • The issue is that the Central Government assigns police personnel to examine all rights violations by the state, even those committed by the police themselves. Such an approach could jeopardize the inquiries’ independence and integrity, raising questions about the NHRC’s impartiality and independence. 
    • The SCA highlighted this concern in its 2017 and 2023 assessments and observed that such dependence is inconsistent with the institutional independence required under the Paris Principles. 
      • In November 2023, the NHRC designated seven retired IPS officers as special monitors to manage terrorism, counterinsurgency, communal disturbances, and violence. 
  • Independence and Appointment Concerns
    • Ruling party’s significant influence in the selection process
      • The composition of the selection committee is highly skewed in favour of the party in power as only two opposition members in the selection committee
    • Ambiguous eligibility criteria
      • The Act does not clearly define the qualifications or minimum human-rights experience required for the three expert members. The broad requirement of “knowledge of or practical experience in matters relating to human rights” permits considerable executive discretion 
      • This lack of specificity has led to the perception that the commission serves as retirement positions for judges, police officers, sharing the political ideology of the Union Government.
    • Concerns over the Selection Process 
      • GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation has repeatedly observed that the NHRC’s selection process is not sufficiently broad and transparent. 
      • It has also expressed disappointment that civil-society organisations are not formally allowed to participate in the Selection Committee’s process. 
      • Opacity 
        • The process for appointing the NHRC’s Chairperson, members, and senior staff lacks transparency and meaningful public participation. 
          • Despite repeated SCA recommendations, vacancies are neither publicly advertised nor subject to open and merit-based selection processes 
    • Government-Appointed Leadership
      • The Secretary-General of the NHRC is a government-appointed civil servant 
        • The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 allows the Indian government to choose a civil servant with the rank of Secretary to the Government as Secretary General of the NHRC of India. This is a clear violation of the Paris Principles, which underlines the principle of working independently without any government influence.
      • The SCA in its 2024 assessment has pointed out that the appointment of the Secretary-General as per Section 11 is a clear violation of Paris Principle.
      • The presence of assigned public service members, including those at the highest levels of the NHRC, raises concerns about the organization’s independence.
    • Concerns over Institutional Neutrality 
      • Most complaints received by the NHRC are against police personnel, while the Commission itself functions under the Union Home Ministry. This institutional arrangement raises concerns about its ability to deal with police-related human-rights violations impartially. 
        • The NHRC registered 2,543 cases of custodial death and rape during 2021–22 
  • Lack of Pluralism in NHRC’s Composition and Representation
    • The NHRC has been repeatedly criticized by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) for its lack of diversity 
      • Gender and Minority Representation: Since its inception, the commission has had only four female members and has never appointed a Muslim member 
      • Narrow Expertise: The leadership and membership are dominated by the judicial fraternity, which limits the diversity of perspectives needed to address a broad range of human rights issues
        • The SCA, has reiterated continuously in its previous assessments that the NHRC’s present membership composition which includes just one woman is insufficient to satisfy the Paris Principles’ standards for pluralism.
        • The SCA in its 2024 assessment stated that a diverse decision-making and staff body enhances the National Human Rights Institution’s (NHRI) appreciation of, and capacity to engage on, all human rights issues impacting the society in which it functions and facilitates the easy accessibility of the NHRI to all citizens.

GANHRI, through the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), is responsible for reviewing and accrediting NHRIs in compliance with the Paris Principles

  • Vacancies and staff shortages 
    • Delayed appointments and inadequate numbers of investigators, researchers and legal officers affect the timely disposal of complaints. 
      • Significant gaps often exist between the terms of chairpersons, leaving the commission “headless” for months 
      • The position of NHRC Chairperson remained vacant from 1 June 2024, following the retirement of former Supreme Court Justice Arun Mishra, until the appointment of Justice V. Ramasubramanian on 23 December 2024. 
        • There have been long gaps between the stints of the last four NHRC chiefs, during which the Commission has been left headless.
    • Leadership and staff issues have created significant operational hurdles for India’s National Human Rights Commission.
  • High pendency
    • A large volume of cases and limited capacity lead to delays
    • Delays  undermine the timely accountability that human rights protection requires. Many cases from marginalised groups remain pending for extended periods. 
  • Operational Failures 
    • “In Limine” Dismissals: More than 50% of cases (over 51,000 in 2020-21) are dismissed “in limine,” or at the very outset, often on technical grounds or through narrow interpretations of the law 
      • Civil society organizations accuse that most complaints have been routinely dismissed at the early stages of filing, often without detailed investigations. All these undermine the Commission’s mandate and compliance with the Paris Principles.  
    • Silence on systemic human rights violations: The NHRC has been criticized for its silence or lack of timely intervention in major human rights crises, including ethnic violence in Manipur, the aftermath of the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, and the targeting of human rights defenders under national security laws like the UAPA 
      • The Commission has failed to address widespread violations and systemic discrimination against minorities, including violent attacks, killings, and unlawful demolitions. 
      • It has remained silent on the passage of new laws and regulations, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, that could further enable state surveillance and undermine privacy and the right to freedom of expression. 
      • It has remained largely silent on systemic issues raised by international bodies, including concerns highlighted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination regarding forced evictions of indigenous communities, illegal detentions in Assam, and extrajudicial killings of Adivasi people in Bastar, Chhattisgarh. The NHRI has not taken suo motu cognizance of these issues nor publicly articulated its position. 
    • Inadequate response to shrinking civic space 
      • Civil Society Organisations accuse that the NHRC has failed to effectively respond to the ever-deteriorating human rights environment in India, including increasing restrictions on freedom of expression, the misuse of repressive laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and reprisals against human rights defenders. 
        • Despite receiving communications from United Nations Special Rapporteurs, the NHRC has remained silent on emblematic cases, such as the illegal detention of refugees and asylum seekers from Myanmar. In other instances—including the case of Adivasi women human rights defender Suneetha Pottam—the NHRC dismissed complaints on procedural grounds, such as pending judicial proceedings, rather than being pursued through independent inquiry. 
        • Similarly, despite rising attacks and harassment against journalists—including Rana Ayyub, Rajdeep Sardesai, Ravish Kumar, Mohammed Zubair, Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Mahesh Langa, and Prabir Purkayastha—the Commission has failed to respond to the broader pattern of intimidation and intervene beyond isolated cases. 
        • In addition, the NHRC has not exercised its visitation mandate to assess detention conditions and provide protection. These inactions reflect a systemic failure to address shrinking civic space and reprisals against dissenting voices. 
  • Relationship with Civil Society
    • The commission faces a lack of effective engagement and cooperation with civil society and human rights defenders (HRDs)
    • The NHRCI’s engagement with civil society organizations (CSOs) remains limited and selective, as it largely interacts with a narrow group of actors while excluding defenders and organizations critical of its performance.
    • Such exclusions of independent and diverse CSOs negatively impact the NHRCI’s ability to adequately and independently address human rights violations.
      • For example, during the crisis in Manipur, the NHRCI failed to engage with independent civil society actors despite the availability of credible fact-finding reports, including those produced by the People’s Union of Civil Liberties alongside jurists and human rights defenders. The Commission neither consulted these actors nor facilitated a broader public dialogue, undermining its mandate for cooperative and participatory engagement. 
      • Similarly, the NHRCI has neither engaged with civil society groups that contributed to critical reports submitted to the SCA, nor has it initiated transparent consultations on implementing the SCA’s recommendations.  Such useful engagements could have facilitated constructive dialogues that could have paved the way to concrete improvements of the NHRCI’s performance. 
    • During its March 2023 review, the SCA noted the NHRC’s lack of effective engagement with civil-society organisations and human-rights defenders. It recommended expanding such collaboration beyond the Core Groups of NGOs and human-rights defenders established by the Commission. 
  • Limited field presence 
    • The NHRC primarily responds to complaints rather than proactively monitoring human rights conditions. Its limited field presence means violations in remote areas may go undetected and unreported to the Commission. 
  • Overlap with category-specific commissions 
    • Jurisdictional overlap with the National Commission for Women, National Commission for SCs, National Commission for STs, and NCPCR creates confusion about which body to approach — and potential for buck-passing between commissions on intersectional cases.

Way Forward

  • Reform of the Appointment and Selection Process
    • Amend the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA): The law should be amended to establish a clear, democratic, and transparent selection process that includes formal participation from civil society organizations, human rights defenders (HRDs), and legal experts.
    • Broaden the Selection Committee: The selection committee should be restructured to prevent the ruling party from having a skewed influence, ideally moving toward unanimous appointments to ensure public trust.
    • Merit-Based Hiring of Leadership: The Secretary-General and the Director of Investigations should be recruited through open, merit-based processes rather than being seconded from government service. 
      • The NHRC should have the independence to recruit its own staff without government interference.
  • Fill vacancies promptly
    • Appointments to the Commission and its investigation, research and legal divisions should be completed within prescribed timelines.
  • Enhancing Pluralism and Diversity
    • Representational Balance: The NHRC must ensure sufficient representation for underprivileged and marginalized communities, including Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), OBCs, religious minorities, and people with disabilities.
    • Gender Balance: Reforms should mandate an appropriate gender balance in both the decision-making body and the general staff, moving beyond the current requirement of only one female member.
    • Diversified Expertise: The governing body should include individuals from diverse backgrounds—such as NGOs, trade unions, and academia—rather than being dominated by the judicial fraternity.
  • Strengthening Investigative Independence
    • Independent Investigative Agency: The commission requires an independent investigative wing that operates without government intervention.
  • Expanding Legal and Jurisdictional Powers
    • Binding Enforcement: The NHRC should be empowered with binding enforcement authority rather than merely having recommendatory powers.
    • Extend Filing Deadlines: The restrictive one-year deadline for filing complaints should be extended to allow more victims, especially those in conflict zones, to seek justice.
    • Wider Jurisdiction: The commission’s role and jurisdiction regarding human rights violations by the armed forces need to be strengthened, particularly in areas under special security laws.
  • Improving Engagement and Operational Efficiency
    • Civil Society Collaboration: The NHRC should establish a non-voting advisory council to the governing council comprising NGOs and independent experts to foster constructive engagement.
      • The NHRC must increase its involvement with civil society and establish specific complaint mechanisms for human rights defenders suffering repression. 
    • Proactive Human Rights Advocacy: The commission must evolve from a reactive body that merely adjudicates complaints into a proactive champion of human rights, taking timely action on major crises.
    • Strengthen State Commissions (SHRCs): All SHRCs should be fully staffed, equipped with functional websites, and provide accessible online complaint systems to ensure local-level accountability
  • Improve Accessibility
    • Establish regional offices
      • Regional benches, camp sittings and open hearings should be expanded to make the NHRC accessible beyond Delhi.
    • Improve grassroots accessibility
      • Complaints should be accepted through regional languages, offline centres, telephone assistance and disability-accessible platforms.
  • Improve coordination
    • Clear referral and information-sharing arrangements should be developed between the NHRC, State Human Rights Commissions and specialised commissions.
  • Reducing case pendency 
    • Dedicated fast-track mechanisms for priority categories — custodial deaths, atrocities, and trafficking — ensuring urgent cases receive timely disposal 
  • Strengthening inter-commission coordination 
    • Formal protocols for case referral and joint inquiry between NHRC and category-specific commissions — eliminating jurisdictional confusion and enabling coordinated response to intersectional violations

Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI)

  • GANHRI was established in 1993 as the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
  • It serves as a global network for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) across the world.
  • GANHRI comprises 120 member institutions, including India.
  • GANHRI's mission is to unite, promote, and strengthen NHRIs to ensure their adherence to the UN's Paris Principles.
  • GANHRI, through the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), is responsible for reviewing and accrediting NHRIs in compliance with the Paris Principles.

Paris Principles

  • It is an internationally set out agreed principle adopted in 1993 by the UN that all NHRI's must meet, to be considered credible.
  • These principles are- mandate and competence, autonomy from government, independence guaranteed by a statute or constitution, pluralism, adequate resources, and adequate powers of investigation.
  • Accreditation for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) is awarded based on their adherence to the Paris Principles.
  • The Paris Principle's minimal standards require a domestic organization (NHRC) to have a sound legal foundation, operate independently of the government, and have clearly defined and transparent procedures for appointing diverse members. Furthermore, NHRIs should employ qualified personnel, must actively connect with civil society, and be accessible for those in need.
  • Institutions that are assessed as fully compliant with the Paris Principles are granted 'A status', while those that partially comply receive 'B-status'.
  • A status accreditation permits NHRIs to participate in the activities of GANHRI, the Human Rights Council, and other UN mechanisms.
  • These principles apply equally to the 25 State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) throughout India, as they do to the National Human Rights Commission of India.

Current Status

  • In March 2025, GANHRI's Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) recommended a downgrade to NHRCI's status from A to B citing concerns over its ability to function independently. GANHRI gave the NHRCI a year to act upon the recommendations before it made a final decision.
  • The NHRCI challenged the downgrade recommendation, but the appeal was rejected by the GANHRI Bureau, referring the matter back to the SCA. Under the original timeline, SCA was supposed to make a final decision in April 2026, however, it has now been postponed to November 2026.
  • The SCA first formally raised its concerns in 2011 and reiterated them in 2016, 2017, 2023, and 2024, then deferred NHRCI's re-accreditation for two consecutive years, in 2023 and 2024.

The NHRC remains an important institution for protecting human dignity, investigating rights violations and providing relief to victims, particularly those belonging to marginalised groups. However, ambiguous eligibility criteria, a non-transparent appointment process, prolonged leadership vacancies, limited engagement with civil society and dependence on police personnel for investigating police-related violations have weakened perceptions of its independence and credibility. The persistent gap between custodial violations and the prosecution and conviction of responsible officials further exposes the limitations of the existing accountability framework.

Reforms must therefore focus on making appointments broad and transparent, ensuring meaningful participation of civil-society organisations and human-rights defenders, eliminating conflicts of interest in investigations and filling vacancies without delay. Strengthening institutional impartiality and adherence to the Paris Principles is essential for enabling the NHRC to function as an effective, independent and credible guardian of human rights.

Sample Mains Question

1. The effectiveness of the National Human Rights Commission depends as much on its institutional independence as on the powers conferred upon it. Discuss. (15 Marks, 250 Words)

2. Despite being an important institutional safeguard for human rights, the National Human Rights Commission faces significant structural and operational limitations. Examine. (15 Marks, 250 Words)

✍️ 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.

Telegram Channel Links

InclusiveIAS

Answer Writing Group

Essay Writing Group

UPSC PRELIMS NOTES

Polity

International Relations

Environment

Economy

Science and Technology

Geography

History and Culture

Mapping

UPSC MAINS NOTES

General Studies - 4 (Ethics)

General Studies - 3

General Studies - 2

General Studies - 1