State Human Rights Commissions: Establishment and Jurisdiction
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, not only established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) but also empowered states to set up their own State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs). In line with this provision, 26 states have formally constituted SHRCs through official gazette notifications, decentralizing human rights oversight across the country.
SHRCs are empowered to investigate human rights violations pertaining exclusively to matters under the State List (List II) and Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. However, they refrain from inquiring into any case already under examination by the NHRC or another statutory commission, ensuring coordinated efforts without overlap. Additionally, the central government may delegate to SHRCs the responsibility for handling human rights matters in Union Territories—excluding Delhi, whose cases fall under the NHRC's purview. This framework balances federal and state roles in safeguarding fundamental rights.
State Human Rights Commission: Appointment, Tenure, Removal
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) is a multi-member body comprising a chairperson and two members, designed to ensure robust oversight of human rights issues at the state level. The chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of a High Court or a retired Judge of a High Court. Members, on the other hand, qualify if they are serving or retired Judges of a High Court, serving or retired District Judges with at least seven years of experience in that role, or individuals with demonstrated knowledge or practical expertise in human rights.
Appointments to these positions are made by the Governor, but only on the binding recommendations of a high-level committee. Headed by the Chief Minister, the committee also includes the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly, the State Home Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly. In states with a Legislative Council, the Chairman of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition there join as additional members. For good measure, appointing a sitting High Court Judge or District Judge requires prior consultation with the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court, safeguarding judicial independence.
The chairperson and members serve for a term of three years or until reaching the age of 70, whichever comes first, and they remain eligible for reappointment. Post-tenure, however, they face a strict bar on further employment under either the state or Central government, preventing conflicts of interest.
Removal from office is a grave matter, reserved exclusively for the President—not the Governor who appoints them—and follows the same stringent grounds and procedures as for the National Human Rights Commission. These include insolvency; engaging in paid employment outside official duties; physical or mental infirmity rendering one unfit; a court-declared unsound mind; or conviction with imprisonment for an offence. Additionally, the President may remove for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, but only after referring the case to the Supreme Court for inquiry. If the Court confirms the allegations and recommends removal, the President acts accordingly. This layered process underscores the Commission's insulation from political pressures.
Salaries, allowances, and service conditions are set by the state government but cannot be altered to the disadvantage of the officeholder after appointment. Together, these provisions—spanning qualifications, appointment, tenure, and removal—fortify the SHRC's autonomy, independence, and impartiality, enabling it to function as a credible guardian of human rights.
NHRC Mandate and Functions
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in India wields a comprehensive mandate to protect and promote human rights, addressing violations through proactive inquiry and judicial intervention. It investigates any breach of human rights or negligence by public servants in preventing such violations—acting either on its own motion (suo motu), upon a petition from an aggrieved party, or at a court's direction. The Commission also has the authority to step into ongoing court proceedings where human rights abuses are alleged, ensuring swift and effective redress.
Beyond reactive measures, the NHRC monitors custodial conditions by visiting jails and detention centers, evaluating inmates' living standards, and recommending improvements. It systematically reviews constitutional provisions and other legal safeguards for human rights, proposing practical steps for their robust enforcement. The Commission further examines broader impediments to rights enjoyment, such as acts of terrorism, and suggests targeted remedies to mitigate these challenges.
To build a rights-conscious society, the NHRC spearheads research in human rights, disseminates literacy on these issues, and raises public awareness of protective mechanisms. It actively bolsters the work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in this domain while pursuing any additional initiatives it deems essential for advancing human rights. Through these multifaceted roles, the Commission serves as a vigilant guardian of India's human rights framework.
Working of the State Human Rights Commission
The State Human Rights Commission enjoys significant autonomy in its operations, with the authority to regulate its own procedures. Endowed with the powers of a civil court, its proceedings carry a distinctly judicial character. This enables the Commission to summon witnesses, enforce attendance, and call for reports or information from the state government or any subordinate authorities, ensuring thorough investigations into alleged human rights violations.
However, the Commission's jurisdiction is time-bound: it cannot initiate an inquiry into any matter more than one year after the alleged violation occurred. This one-year window underscores the need for prompt action in addressing grievances.
Upon completing an inquiry—or even during its course—the Commission can take decisive steps to seek redress. It may recommend that the state government or relevant authority provide compensation or damages to the victim, initiate prosecution or disciplinary proceedings against guilty public servants, or grant immediate interim relief. In cases requiring stronger intervention, the Commission can directly approach the Supreme Court or the state high court for directions, orders, or writs.
Despite these robust powers, the Commission's role remains primarily recommendatory. It lacks the authority to directly punish violators or award relief, including monetary compensation, to victims. Its recommendations, while influential, are not legally binding on the state government or authorities. That said, the government must inform the Commission of actions taken—or reasons for inaction—within one month, promoting accountability.
To maintain transparency, the Commission submits annual or special reports to the state government. These are promptly laid before the state legislature, accompanied by a memorandum detailing actions taken on the Commission's recommendations and explanations for any non-acceptance. This mechanism ensures legislative oversight and reinforces the Commission's pivotal role in upholding human rights.
Human Rights Courts
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, introduces a vital mechanism for swift justice by authorizing the creation of Human Rights Courts in every district. These specialized courts are designed specifically to expedite trials in cases of human rights violations, addressing delays that often plague the regular judicial system.
State governments hold the responsibility for establishing these courts, but they must secure the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the respective High Court before proceeding. To staff each court effectively, the state government designates a public prosecutor or appoints an advocate with at least seven years of practice experience as a special public prosecutor, ensuring competent and dedicated handling of sensitive cases.
Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019
The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, introduced key reforms to strengthen the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs). These changes expanded eligibility criteria, enhanced institutional composition, adjusted tenure, and streamlined administrative functions, all aimed at making the bodies more representative and efficient.
A notable shift in leadership eligibility allows a retired Supreme Court judge—beyond just a former Chief Justice of India—to serve as NHRC Chairperson. Similarly, for SHRCs, a former High Court judge can now be appointed Chairperson, in addition to a former Chief Justice of that High Court. The Act also broadens the NHRC's membership by increasing the number of non-judicial members (selected for their expertise or practical experience in human rights) from two to three, with at least one being a woman. It further integrates other national commissions by designating the Chairpersons of the National Commission for Backward Classes, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as ex-officio members of the NHRC.
To promote continuity and fresh perspectives, the Act shortens the term of both NHRC and SHRC Chairpersons and members from five years to three, while permitting reappointment. Administratively, it empowers the NHRC's Secretary-General to handle all financial and administrative matters (excluding judicial functions and regulation-making powers), subject to the Chairperson's oversight. The same authority extends to the Secretary of each SHRC.
Finally, the central government can now delegate human rights functions in Union Territories—except Delhi, which remains under the NHRC—to the respective SHRCs, ensuring localized oversight where feasible. These amendments collectively bolster the commissions' capacity to address human rights violations more dynamically and inclusively.