eforms and Amendments to the National Human
R
Rights Commission (NHRC)
he National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India was established as a statutory
T
body under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993. Its mandate is to protect and
promote human rights, defined by Section 2(d) of the Act as the rights relating to life,
liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual, guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied
in international covenants and enforceable by Indian courts. Despite its noble intent and
alignment with the Paris Principles—emphasizing autonomy, legal independence, adequate
resources, and investigative authority—the NHRC has long struggled with limitations that
hinder its effective functioning. Over the years, several reforms and amendments have
been proposed and implemented to address these challenges.
Early Criticisms and Need for Reform
rom its inception, the NHRC faced criticism for being a “toothless” body—lacking financial
F
and administrative autonomy, restricted jurisdiction over armed forces, and having no
control over appointments or the functioning of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs).
In response, a committee headed by former Chief Justice A.M. Ahmadi was constituted in
1998 during the tenure of Justice Venkatachaliah as NHRC Chairperson. The committee
consulted legal experts, High Court Chief Justices, SHRC chairpersons, and civil society
organizations to recommend necessary amendments.
Key Recommendations of the Ahmadi Committee
The Ahmadi Committee proposed significant structural and operational reforms, including:
1. F inancial and Administrative Autonomy: The NHRC shouldhave control over its
budget and the authority to appoint its own staff. The reliance on
government-deputed personnel with little human rights expertise diluted the
commission's independence.
2. Expanded Jurisdiction: Section 19 of the PHRA limitedthe NHRC’s power to merely
request reports from the government in cases involving the armed forces. The
committee urged the removal of this restriction, allowing direct investigation into
violations committed by the military and paramilitary forces.
3. Appointment Process: It recommended including theNHRC Chairperson in the
selection committee for appointing other commission members to ensure a more
transparent and balanced process.
4. Broader Definition of Armed Forces: To include paramilitary forces like the BSF
and CRPF under NHRC’s direct oversight, which were previously excluded.
5. O perational Reforms: Proposals included allowing complaints beyond the one-year
limitation period in special circumstances and empowering the NHRC to grant
interim relief during ongoing investigations.
6. Integration of International Treaties: The Committeerecommended that all
international human rights treaties ratified by India be explicitly recognized under
the PHRA, expanding NHRC’s authority in line with global standards.
espite these strong and well-reasoned recommendations, most were either ignored or
D
only partially implemented.
The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006
he 2006 Amendment to the PHRA brought some positive changes but fell short of
T
expectations:
● E xpanded Eligibility: Allowed Supreme Court judgeswith at least three years of
service to be appointed as NHRC Chairperson.
● Complaint Transfers: Enabled the NHRC to transfercases to SHRCs, decentralizing
grievance redressal.
● Unannounced Jail Visits: Authorized the NHRC to inspectprisons without prior
notice to state governments.
owever, crucial recommendations—such as financial autonomy, jurisdiction over armed
H
forces, and reforms to the appointment process—were left unaddressed.
Post-2006 Reforms and Operational Improvements
Although not always legislative, certain operational improvements followed:
D
● igitization of Complaints: Streamlined complaint filing and tracking processes.
● Increased Collaboration: Strengthened partnerships with NGOs, UN agencies, and
international human rights bodies.
● Monitoring and Reporting: Emphasis was placed on timely submission of annual
reports to Parliament.
The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019
The 2019 Amendment brought further changes, some of which sparked controversy:
● C hairperson Eligibility: Retired judges of the Supreme Court, not necessarily
former Chief Justices, became eligible to head the NHRC, raising concerns over
dilution of the office's stature.
● Increased Representation: The Commission now includes three members with
human rights expertise, one of whom must be a woman.
● E x-Officio Members: Chairpersons of national commissions for backward classes,
child rights, and persons with disabilities were made deemed members of the
NHRC.
● Tenure Reduction: The tenure of Chairperson and memberswas reduced from five
to three years, albeit with reappointment eligibility.
● SHRC Reforms: The eligibility for SHRC Chairpersonswas expanded to include any
High Court judge, not just Chief Justices. SHRCs were also given jurisdiction over
Union Territories (except Delhi), potentially increasing their relevance.
Critical Analysis
hile amendments have incrementally expanded NHRC’s structure and scope, the core
W
issues of autonomy, jurisdiction over armed forces, and quality of appointments remain
unresolved. The commission’s dependence on government funding and deputed officials
undermines its independence. Moreover, the lack of enforcement powers for its
recommendations continues to limit its impact. The failure to include the Chairperson in
the appointment process, along with politically motivated appointments, has further
dented its credibility.
he Ahmadi Committee’s unimplemented suggestions—particularly on financial autonomy,
T
armed forces oversight, and member selection—remain essential for meaningful reform.
The experience of SHRCs, many of which have become dysfunctional, underscores the
urgency for revitalization through coordinated oversight by the NHRC and stricter
adherence to the Paris Principles.
erformance and Challenges of the National Human
P
Rights Commission (NHRC)
he National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India, established in 1993 under the
T
Protection of Human Rights Act, has been at the forefront of efforts to promote and protect
the fundamental rights and freedoms of Indian citizens. Over the years, the NHRC has
played a pivotal role in drawing attention to violations, recommending policy reforms, and
working toward a more just and humane society. However, despite its vital mandate, the
Commission has faced numerous structural, operational, and credibility-related challenges
that have hindered its full potential.
Performance and Contributions of the NHRC
he NHRC has actively addressed a wide range of human rights concerns, particularly
T
affecting marginalized and vulnerable groups. Some of the notable areas where the
Commission has made meaningful interventions include:
1. A bolition of Bonded Labour: The NHRC has investigated instances of bonded
labour and worked with state authorities to ensure rehabilitation and legal redress
for affected individuals.
2. Abolition of Child Labour: Through inquiries, awarenesscampaigns, and policy
advocacy, the Commission has contributed to national efforts against child
exploitation.
3. Rights of Disabled Persons: The NHRC has consistentlyadvocated for the rights of
persons with disabilities, emphasizing accessibility, non-discrimination, and
inclusion.
4. Protection of HIV/AIDS-affected Persons: It has promotedthe rights of those
affected by HIV/AIDS, working to combat stigma and discrimination.
5. Custodial Deaths, Rape, and Torture: One of the mostsignificant aspects of the
NHRC’s work has been its intervention in cases of custodial deaths and police
brutality. The Commission routinely seeks reports, conducts inquiries, and
recommends compensation and prosecution where warranted.
hese initiatives have helped raise awareness, mobilize state action, and bring human
T
rights discourse into the mainstream. However, the overall impact of the NHRC is often
undermined by persistent structural and functional limitations.
Key Challenges Facing the NHRC
espite its achievements, the NHRC continues to face a series of challenges that limit its
D
effectiveness:
1. D elayed Appointments: The Commission has often functionedwithout a full
complement of members due to delays in appointing the Chairperson and other
officials. This has hampered its ability to respond swiftly and comprehensively to
human rights concerns.
2. Lack of Transparency and Representation: The GlobalAlliance of National Human
Rights Institutions (GANHRI) has deferred NHRC’s accreditation for the second
consecutive year, citing inadequate transparency in the appointment process and
insufficient representation of women and minorities within the Commission.
3. Non-Binding Recommendations: The NHRC does not havethe power to enforce its
recommendations, which are advisory in nature. As a result, many of its suggestions
are ignored or implemented partially by government agencies.
4. No Punitive Authority: The Commission lacks the authority to punish violators or
provide direct relief to victims, which undermines its credibility and deters effective
deterrence.
5. Limited Investigative Capacity: The NHRC does not possess its own independent
investigative machinery and relies on reports from state and central agencies. This
often leads to bias, especially in cases involving state actors.
6. R estrictive Time Frame: Complaints can only be taken up if filed within one year of
the alleged incident. This statutory limitation excludes a large number of genuine
cases, particularly those involving systemic or long-standing violations.
7. Inadequate Resources: Financial and staff shortagesseverely restrict the NHRC’s
ability to conduct field investigations, hold awareness campaigns, or expand its
outreach across India.
8. Perceived Lack of Independence: The composition ofthe Commission, which
predominantly includes former judges and bureaucrats appointed by the
government, has raised concerns about political neutrality and institutional
independence.
9. Reactive Rather than Proactive: The NHRC is oftenseen as responding to issues
only after they gain public attention, rather than adopting a proactive stance to
prevent violations.
The Way Forward: Strengthening the NHRC
or the NHRC to fulfill its constitutional and moral mandate more effectively, several crucial
F
reforms are necessary:
1. G ranting Enforcement Powers: The Commission must be empowered to enforce
its recommendations and compel compliance, thereby ensuring accountability
among state actors.
2. Independent Investigative Authority: Establishing a dedicated investigative wing
would enable the NHRC to conduct impartial inquiries, especially in cases involving
law enforcement or military personnel.
3. Timely and Transparent Appointments: Institutionalizinga transparent,
consultative process for appointments, with due emphasis on diversity and
representation, is critical for restoring credibility.
4. Relaxing Time Limits for Complaints: The one-year limit should be made flexible
to accommodate exceptional cases, particularly where systemic abuse or delayed
access to justice is involved.
5. Increasing Financial Autonomy: Allocating an independentbudget and reducing
dependence on government-deputed personnel would enhance the NHRC’s
functional autonomy.
6. Inclusive Composition: Broadening the Commission to include civil society
members, human rights activists, and subject-matter experts would improve
decision-making and public trust.
7. Capacity Building: Regular training programs for NHRC staff and members are
necessary to keep pace with evolving human rights challenges, legal standards, and
best practices.
8. Institutional Accountability: Establishing clear metrics for performance evaluation
and publicly reporting outcomes would promote transparency and ensure
goal-oriented functioning.