The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India is an autonomous public body constituted on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Ordinance of 28 September 1993. It was given a statutory basis by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (TPHRA). The NHRC is the National Human Rights Commission of India, responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights, defined by the Act as “rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants”.

In February 2019, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), a UN body based in Geneva, re-accredited India’s apex rights watchdog with the ‘A’ status, a perfect score.

The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019 passed in Lok Sabha. The bill aims to accelerate the process of appointment of chairperson and members of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). It amends the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993 and intends to make the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) more inclusive and efficient.

Major issues tackled by NHRC are as follows

• Custodial Torture
• Right to Work and Labour Rights
• Extrajudicial Killings
• Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
• Excessive Powers of the Armed Forces and the Police
• Sexual Violence
• Conflict-Induced Internal Displacement
• Child Labour
• Manual Scavenging
• Violence and discrimination against Women, Children
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Rights
• Problems faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Religious Minorities, Persons with Disabilities

Challenges of NHRC:

• In the process of selection of the members of the Commission, the Chairman is not consulted.
• Because of certain weakness in the Act, at times the Commission feels the need for the amendments. But the Commission has constraints in doing so.
• The selection committee tasked with appointing the chairperson and the members to the Commission is dominated by the representatives of the State itself.
• It consists of the prime minister, home minister, Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Deputy-Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Thus, this creates a conflict of interest.
• Another major weakness of the Commission is that it does not have powers to investigate armed forces, BSF or any other paramilitary forces.
• Finally, NHRC is only an investigative and recommendatory body. It does not have power of prosecution. Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act empowers the Human Rights Commission to “recommend” to the concerned government to take appropriate actions.
• It is dependent on the Government for manpower and money. The Central Government shall pay to the Commission by way of grants such sums of money as it may consider fit.

Way forward:

• The first step in strengthening the Human rights framework in India, the recommendations of NHRC can be made binding.
• The effectiveness of commissions will be greatly enhanced if their decisions are immediately made enforceable by the government.
• The Human Rights Commission has the powers of a civil court, and proceedings before it are deemed to be judicial proceedings.
• This provides strong reasons for human rights commissions to be treated as quasi-judicial, and like other tribunals, their recommendations should be binding upon the state (unless challenged).
• A large number of human rights violations occur in areas where there is insurgency and internal conflict. Not allowing NHRC to independently investigate complaints against the military and security forces only compounds the problems and furthers cultures of impunity. It is essential that commission is able to summons witnesses and documents.
• As non-judicial member positions are increasingly being filled by ex-bureaucrats, credence is given to the contention that NHRC is more an extension of the government, rather than independent agency exercising oversight. If it is to play a meaningful role in society, it must include civil society human rights activists as members. Many activists have the knowledge and on-the-ground experience of contemporary trends in the human rights movement to be an asset to the Commission.
• NHRC needs to develop an independent cadre of staff with appropriate experience. This problem can be rectified by employing specially recruited and qualified staff to help clear the heavy inflow of complaints.

In this context, the Human Rights Commissions aims to ensure the full realization of the constitutional commitment to protecting human rights and act as protector for citizens against arbitrary state action. It is therefore clear that in determining the powers of autonomous bodies such as the Human Rights Commission, the role that fourth branch institutions are expected to play in the constitutional scheme is significant. And lastly, the Human Rights Commission has the powers of a civil court, and proceedings before it is deemed to be judicial proceedings. This provides strong reasons for its findings to be treated at the very least as quasi-judicial, and binding upon the state (unless challenged). In sum, the crucial role played by a Human Rights Commission and the requirement of state accountability in a democracy committed to a ‘culture of justification’ strongly indicates that the Commission’s recommendations should be binding upon the state.