National and State Human Rights Commissions (NHRC/SHRC)
NHRC SHRC functions cover how these commissions investigate rights violations, their composition, powers, limits, and the 2019 Amendment changes.
At a glance
NHRC (national) and SHRCs (state-level) are statutory watchdog bodies set up under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to inquire into and address violations of human rights.
NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), the Chakma Migrants case — Supreme Court held Chakma refugees could not be forcibly driven out and were entitled to Article 21 protection.
Both commissions hold civil-court powers during inquiry but can only recommend compensation, prosecution or interim relief — their findings are not binding on government.
They are the principal institutional channel for investigating custodial deaths, encounters, and other rights violations independently of the government.
Timeline
NHRC SHRC functions cover the investigative, advisory and awareness-building work carried out by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) at the Centre and the State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) in the states to safeguard the rights to life, liberty, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution and recognised in international human-rights covenants. Both bodies were created by the same 1993 law and share a broadly similar design, but they differ in composition, jurisdiction and the level of government they answer to.
Establishment and Legal Status
The NHRC was set up in 1993 by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, an ordinary law passed by Parliament — making it a statutory body, not a constitutional one. The same Act also enabled states to set up SHRCs; unlike the NHRC, which is mandatory, an SHRC is optional for each state government to constitute. The purpose behind both was to give human-rights complaints a dedicated institutional channel, to allow independent scrutiny of alleged excesses without being seen as an arm of government, and to reinforce — not replace — existing legal and judicial safeguards.
Composition, Appointment and Removal
| Aspect | NHRC | SHRC |
|---|---|---|
| Size | Chairperson + 5 members + 7 ex-officio members (heads of National Commissions for Minorities, SCs, STs, Women, BCs, Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities) | Chairperson + 2 members |
| Chairperson eligibility | Retired Chief Justice of India or a sitting/retired Supreme Court judge | Retired Chief Justice or judge of a High Court |
| Members drawn from | Serving/retired SC judges, a serving/retired HC Chief Justice, and 3 persons with human-rights expertise (at least one woman) | Serving/retired HC judges or District Judges (7+ years' experience), plus a human-rights expert |
| Appointed by | President, on recommendation of a panel headed by the PM (with the Lok Sabha Speaker, Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman, both Houses' Leaders of Opposition, and the Union Home Minister) | Governor, on recommendation of a panel headed by the Chief Minister (with the Assembly Speaker, state Home Minister and Leader of Opposition; plus the Council Chairman and its Leader of Opposition where applicable) |
| Tenure | 3 years or age 70, whichever earlier; eligible for reappointment | Same as NHRC |
| Removed by | President | President (even though the Governor appoints) |
A sitting judge can be appointed to either commission only after consulting the Chief Justice concerned (of India, or of the High Court). Removal grounds are identical for both: insolvency, taking up paid outside employment, unsoundness of mind, or criminal conviction — all decided directly by the President; while removal for proved misbehaviour or incapacity additionally requires a Supreme Court inquiry that upholds the charge.
Functions and Powers
The functions assigned to the two commissions overlap closely, though the NHRC's list is somewhat longer.
| Function | NHRC | SHRC |
|---|---|---|
| Inquire into rights violations (suo motu, on petition, or on court referral) | Yes | Yes |
| Intervene in court proceedings involving human-rights allegations | Yes | Yes |
| Inspect jails and detention facilities | Yes | Yes |
| Review legal/constitutional safeguards and recommend reform | Yes | Yes |
| Study international human-rights treaties and recommend implementation | Yes | No |
| Review factors (e.g., terrorism) that inhibit enjoyment of rights | Yes | Yes |
| Promote research and spread human-rights literacy | Yes | Yes |
| Support the work of human-rights NGOs | Yes | Yes |
Both bodies hold civil-court powers during an inquiry — summoning witnesses on oath, requisitioning documents and records, and receiving evidence on affidavit — but neither can punish an offender directly. On completing an inquiry, a commission can only recommend compensation, prosecution of the erring official, interim relief, or approach the Supreme Court or the relevant High Court for directions. These recommendations are not binding, though the government must report back within one month (three months for matters involving the armed forces).
Jurisdiction and Working Limits
An SHRC's jurisdiction is confined to subjects in the State List and the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, and it must step aside if the NHRC or another statutory commission is already examining the same matter. The Centre can also extend an SHRC's remit to Union Territories, except Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh and Delhi, which stay with the NHRC. Both bodies are barred from taking up a complaint more than one year after the alleged violation, and both must submit annual or special reports — the NHRC to the Union and concerned state legislatures, the SHRC to the state legislature — with a memorandum on action taken on their recommendations.
Also under the 1993 Act, a state government may, with the concurrence of the High Court's Chief Justice, designate a district-level Court of Session as a Human Rights Court for speedy trial of such offences, with a public prosecutor or experienced advocate appointed to conduct cases there.
The 2019 Amendment
The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 made a former Supreme Court judge (not only a former CJI) eligible to chair the NHRC, and a former High Court judge (not only a former Chief Justice) eligible to chair an SHRC. It raised the NHRC's full-time expert members from two to three (at least one woman), and added the chairpersons of the National Commission for Backward Classes and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights, plus the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, as ex-officio NHRC members. It cut the tenure of chairpersons and members of both bodies from five years to three while permitting reappointment, assigned administrative and financial powers to the Secretary-General (NHRC) and Secretary (SHRC) subject to the chairperson's control, and revised which Union Territories fall under SHRC versus NHRC jurisdiction.
A Landmark Case
In NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), popularly known as the Chakma Migrants case, the Supreme Court held that Chakma refugees settled in Arunachal Pradesh could not be forcibly driven out of the state and were entitled to protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21, regardless of their citizenship status — an early illustration of the Commission's role in bringing rights violations before the judiciary.
Challenges Facing the Commissions
The NHRC has itself flagged recurring constraints: administrative autonomy short of the Paris Principles' requirement of independent staffing and premises; undelegated financial powers such as vehicle-purchase approval; and manpower shortages forcing reliance on retired officials on contract. In 2017 the Supreme Court noted concern over this staffing shortfall and directed the government to address it. Because recommendations are advisory, not binding, the commissions' practical effectiveness depends on governments choosing to act on them.
UPSC Relevance
Prelims
- NHRC/SHRC are statutory, not constitutional, bodies — a frequently tested distinction against bodies like the National Commission for SCs (Article 338).
- Composition details (chairperson eligibility, number of members, ex-officio members) and the one-year limitation on taking up complaints are common objective-question points.
- The 2019 Amendment's changes to eligibility and tenure are a recurring update to track.
Mains
- Evaluate why Human Rights Commissions, despite their contribution, have struggled to assert themselves against powerful violators, and suggest remedial measures.
- Assess the NHRC as a complement to the judiciary and other institutions in enforcing human-rights standards, given that its recommendations are not binding.
FAQ
Is the NHRC a constitutional body? No. It was created by an ordinary parliamentary statute, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, so it is a statutory body.
Can the NHRC punish a public servant found guilty of a violation? No. Its powers are recommendatory — it can suggest compensation, prosecution or interim relief, or move the courts, but cannot impose punishment itself.
What subjects can an SHRC investigate? Only matters falling under the State List or the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, and only if the same matter is not already being examined by the NHRC or another statutory commission.
Who can remove the chairperson of an SHRC, and how? Only the President, even though the Governor makes the appointment — following the same grounds and, for misbehaviour or incapacity, the same Supreme Court inquiry procedure that applies to the NHRC.
Within what time limit must a complaint be filed? Both the NHRC and SHRCs can only inquire into a violation if the complaint is made within one year of the alleged act.
Quick Revision
- Legal basis: Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (amended 2019).
- NHRC: chairperson + 5 members + 7 ex-officio members; appointed by President.
- SHRC: chairperson + 2 members; appointed by Governor; removable only by President.
- Both have civil-court powers during inquiry but only recommendatory powers after.
- One-year limitation period for complaints.
- Human Rights Courts: district-level Sessions Courts designated for speedy trial.
- Landmark case: NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) — Chakma Migrants case.
Sources
- Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — India Code
- National Human Rights Commission — Official Website
- NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742 — Supreme Court of India
Further Reference
For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:
- M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
- D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
- The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.