HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS IN

INDIA
To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.

-Nelson Mandela

There are different ways of protecting human rights. A pluralist and accountable parliament, an
executive who is ultimately subject to the authority of elected representatives and an
independent, impartial judiciary are necessary, but not sufficient, institutional prerequisites.
Besides these basic ‘institutions’ there may be other mechanisms whose establishment and
strengthening will enhance the excising mechanisms. Lately National Human Rights
Commissions (NHRCs) have become prominent actors in the national, regional and international
human rights arena. The UN bodies and other funders in international donor community have
directly encouraged and supported both technically and financially the growth of these
institutions. The international community lends its support because it considers the process of
establishing NHRCs to be an indication that a government is willing to abide by international
human rights norms. This Reasearch paper will help the reader to understand need to protect
human rights, how the commission is formed and cases where NHRC is involved.

INTRODUCTION

The establishment of National Human rights Commission in India resulted from a number of
both national and international factors like Internal conflict in states like Punjab, Jammu and
Kashmir and the North Eastern states in the year 1980s and 1990s and the way government dealt
these issues with a heavy hand. When basic human rights were ignored in the name of national
security, the media, civil society organization and the general public increasingly expressed
concern about how the police and security forces actions in tackling insurgency and the culture
of impunity within the government. The international community also continued to remind the
government to fulfil its international obligations to establish mechanisms for protecting human
rights. The idea of creation of such bodies which is impartial in was initiated by UNESCO in
1946. The Secretariat in the memorandum ‘Supervision and Enforcement of Human Rights’ in
1947 had suggested for the creation of such body in the state1.In 1966, the general assembly
adopted the proposal to perform certain functions pertaining the observance of the Covenant on
Civil and political Rights and the Economic, Social and cultural Rights 2.In the year 1970 the
commission agreed that the National Commission for Human rights will be Subjective for each
state and should be decided in the light of traditions and institution of its own country.

In October 1993, the first International Workshop on national institute for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights was held in Paris. The conclusion of that workshop was endorsed in
resolution 54 of 1993 which were known as Paris Principle. Paris principle set out six main
criteria that NHRIs require to meet which are as follow-:

1. Mandate and competence: a broad mandate, based on universal human rights norms and
standards;
2. Autonomy from Government;
3. Independence guaranteed by statute or Constitution;
4. Pluralism;
5. Adequate resources; and
6. Adequate powers of investigation.

The World Conference on Human rights in the year 1993 3 urges the government to strengthen
the institutes and organs of society which promote and safeguard human rights. Periodic meeting
started happening where the states exchange there information and experience as well as co-
operation with regional institution and the United Nations. The Complex human rights problems
were highlighted in the Fourth International Workshop of National Institution held at Merida
(Mexico) from 17 to 29 November 1997 and regional meeting in Asia and Pacific (1997) and in
Africa 1998.

It is to be noted that the National Institutions can play a vital role in protecting and promoting the
human rights. They may compliment the judiciary by monitoring the functioning of other
institution of human rights and can also help to develop the condition of human rights to develop
a culture by making people aware of their rights.

1
U.N Doc. E/CN A/AC/ 1/12, pp 2-3
2
General Assemble Resolution 2200 © XXI, dated December 16,1966
3
General Assemble resolution 48/134 dated December 20,1993
 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IN INDIA

In early 1990s India felt the need to establish a commission as a positive responses to the
criticisms of the foreign Government’s political unrest and violence. The pressure from foreign
countries because of the awareness among the people for the protection of human rights also
resulted in the establishment of human rights commission. The establishment of commission was
sudden and without due deliberations.

PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

On May 14, 1992 the Human rights Commission Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha. However
due to the pressure from the foreign states and domestic front the President of India by ordinance
created the commission of Human rights and Commission at the state level. The National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC) of India is a Statutory public body constituted on 12 October 1993
under the Protection of Human Rights Ordinance of 27 September 1993 and it later amended in
the year 2006. It enabled the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission in Delhi
and 14 state human rights commissions around the country. Every year in October 12, 1993 it is
observed as foundation Day. The Bill became Act after it received the assent of the President on
8 January 1994 and then it is known as The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 states that the commission is the protector of "rights
relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or
embodied in the International”.

The setting up of a national institution is one of the most effective means to prefer these various
functions relating to the implementation of education, training, research and conduct impartial
investigation into alleged violations. It also provide an effective mode of redressal of violation
either by negotiation by the government concerned or may assist the victims by providing relief
through a court of law ,monitors the government to keep compliance with the treaty
commitments.

Section 2(d) of the Act4 defines the expression “human rights” as the rights relating to life,
liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the
International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. This definition limits the functioning
4
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
of NHRC as the words “enforceable by courts in India” are strictly talking about the fundamental
rights embodied in Part III which are enforceable by the courts in India. India had ratified only
two covenant- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

A penitent question arises as to why commission was established for the protection of
fundamental rights when they begin constitutional rights enactments are enforceable before the
courts of laws. It appears that the main purpose of the enactment was to provide better protection
of human rights. Government was reviewing the existing laws, procedures and system of
administration of justice with a view to bringing greater accountability and transparency in them
and devising efficient and effective methods of dealing with the situation. It was thought that the
commission would provide immense help in this regard. Wide-ranging discussions were held in a
number of conference and seminars and after taking into account the views expressed therein, the
bill was brought before the parliament. The Act set up a National Human Rights Commission
and the State Human Rights Commission in the States and the Human Rights Courts.

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (NHRC)

Chapter II to IV of the Act deals with the National Human Rights Commission. Main Provision
to it are as follow –
CONSTITUTION

Section 3 of the Act Constitution of a National Human Rights Commission-

(1) The Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as the National Human Rights
Commission to exercise the powers which shall have eight members.

(2) The Commission shall consist of—

(a) a Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court;

(b) one Member who is, or has been, a Judge of the Supreme Court;

(c) one Member who is, or has been, the Chief Justice of a High Court;

(d) two Members to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of, or practical
experience in, matters relating to human rights.
These persons shall be appointed by the prime minister. The Chairperson and the members shall
hold office for a period of five years from the date on which they enter the office. They shall be
appointed for another term5. The chairperson or any other member of the commission may be
removed from his office by an order of the president on the ground of proved misbehavior or
incapacity after the Supreme Court6, on reference being made to it by the president has an
inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf by the supreme court,
reported that the chairperson or any other person ought, on any such ground, to be removed.

Section 5(2) of the Act provides that the Chairperson or any Member shall only be removed from
his office by order of the President of India on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity
after the Supreme Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held in
accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf by the Supreme Court, reported that the
Chairperson or the Member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed.
Term of office of Chairperson shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he
enters upon his office or until he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier7.

FUNCTIONS

Functions of commission is provided in Section 12 which are as follow-:

 proactively or reactively inquire into violations of government of India human rights or

negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant
 by leave of the court, to intervene in court proceeding relating to human rights
 Make recommendations about granting relief to the victims and their families.
 review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being
in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective
implementation
 review the factors, including acts of terrorism that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights
and recommend appropriate remedial measures
 undertake and promote research in the field of human rights

5
Section 6 of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
6
Section 5(2) of the Protection of human rights (amendment) Act, 2000 (Act 43 of 2006)
7
Section 6(2)
  Encourage the efforts of NGOs and institutions congress to working in the field of human
rights.
 Such other function as it may consider it necessary for the protection of human rights.

PROCEDURE

The commission has been empowered under section 10(2) to regulate its own procedure. In
accordance with the above power the commission made the regulation which are called Human
Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994. These regulation came into force with
effect from March 1, 1994. Section 40- B wherein the commission has been empowered to
make regulation by notification to carry out the provision of the Act with the previous approval
of the Central government. Section 10(3) lays down that every regulation made by the
commission shall be laid before each house of parliament, as soon after it is made.

THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2019

The bill was Introduced in Lok Sabha on 08 July 2019 and then passed on July 19, 2019. It was
passed by Rajya Sabha on Jul 22, 2019.

The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha by the
Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Amit Shah, on July 8, 2019. The Bill amends the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993. The Act provides for a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC),
State Human Rights Commissions (SHRC), as well as Human Rights Courts.

Composition of NHRC: Under the Act, the chairperson of the NHRC is a person who has been a
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Bill amends this to provide that a person who has been
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or a Judge of the Supreme Court will be the chairperson of
the NHRC.

The Act provides for two persons having knowledge of human rights to be appointed as
members of the NHRC. The Bill amends this to allow three members to be appointed, of which
at least one will be a woman. Under the Act, chairpersons of various commissions such as the
National Commission for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, and
National Commission for Women are members of the NHRC. The Bill provides for including
the chairpersons of the National Commission for Backward Classes, the National Commission
for the Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as
members of the NHRC.

Chairperson of SHRC: Under the Act, the chairperson of a SHRC is a person who has been a
Chief Justice of a High Court. The Bill amends this to provide that a person who has been Chief
Justice or Judge of a High Court will be chairperson of a SHRC.

Term of office: The Act states that the chairperson and members of the NHRC and SHRC will
hold office for five years or till the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier. The Bill reduces
the term of office to three years or till the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier. Further, the
Act allows for the reappointment of members of the NHRC and SHRCs for a period of five
years. The Bill removes the five-year limit for reappointment.

Powers of Secretary-General: The Act provides for a Secretary-General of the NHRC and a
Secretary of a SHRC, who exercise powers as may be delegated to them. The Bill amends this
and allows the Secretary-General and Secretary to exercise all administrative and financial
powers (except judicial functions), subject to the respective chairperson’s control.

Union Territories: The Bill provides that the central government may confer on a SHRC human
rights functions being discharged by Union Territories. Functions relating to human rights in the
case of Delhi will be dealt with by the NHRC.

STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (SHRC’s)

A State Government may constitute a body known as the Human Rights Commission of that
State to exercise the powers conferred upon, and to perform the functions assigned to, a State
Commission. In accordance to the amendment brought in TPHRA,1993 of State Human Rights
Commissions formed to perform the functions of the commission as stated under chapter V of
TPHRA,1993 (with amendment act 2006). At present, 25 states have constituted SHRC.

Section 21 of the Act provides for Constitution of human rights Commission which are as
follow-(a) Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court;

(b) one Member who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court or District Judge in the State with a
minimum of seven years experience as District Judge;
(c) One Member to be appointed from among persons having knowledge of or practical
experience in matters relating to human rights.

The Commission is required to submit its annual report to the state government and it may
submit at any time special report on any matter which in its opinion is of such urgency or
importance that it should not be debarred till submission of annual report 8. The Functioning,
Constitution and procedure of working is closely related to NHRC. In the year 2011 NHRC
constituted a Committee under the chairman of Mr. Justice G.P Mathur, a member of the
commission to look into the issue of evolving a basic structure, minimum manpower and
financial requirement of SHRCs to enable them to discharge their assigned functions. The
Committee is expected to find ways to improve functioning of the SHRCs.

Human Rights Courts in Districts

One of the objects of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as stated in the preamble of the
Act, is the establishment of human rights courts at district level. The creation of Human Rights
Courts at the district level has a great potential to protect and realize human rights at the
grassroots. he Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides for establishment Human Rights
Courts for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human
rights. It provides that the state Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of
the High Court, by notification, specify for each district a Court of Sessions to be a Human
Rights Court to try the said offences. The object of establishment of such Courts at district level
is to ensure speedy disposal of cases relating to offences arising out of violation of human rights.
Even if "offences arising out of violations of human rights" are defined and clarified or
classified, another problem arises in the working of the Human Rights courts in India. Sessions
Court of the district concerned is considered as the Human Rights Court. Under the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 a Sessions Judge cannot take cognizance of the offence. He can only try
the cases committed to him by the magistrate under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. The object of
establishment of such Courts at district level is to ensure speedy disposal of cases relating to
offences arising out of violation of human rights. Unless the lawmakers take note of the above
anomalies and remove them by proper amendments the aim for which provisions are made for

8
Section 28(1)
establishment of special courts will not be achieved.
Jurisprudence of cognizance can be by -:

1. suo moto i.e. on the basis media reports or

2. Petitioner i.e. by victims or on his behalf

Some of the cases National Human Rights Commission is involved is as follow:

In Case of The Bijbehara Massacre

an incident that took place between protesters and the Border Security Force (BSF) in the Indian
state Jammu & Kashmir on 22 October 1993. The BSF was accused of arbitrarily firing on a
crowd and killing 51 civilians in Bijbehara after protests erupted over the siege of the mosque in
Hazratbal. India's official version of events that its army acted in self-defense when fired upon by
militants was rejected by Human Rights. The commission also recommended that "immediate
interim compensation" be paid to the victims' families and "a thorough review should be
undertaken by government of the circumstances and conditions in which Units of the Border
Security Force are deployed and expected to operate in situations involving only civilian
population."
The NHRC told the government to preserve all related documents and then appealed to the
Supreme Court "to issue a writ to make available to the petitioner the relevant records of the
courts martial conducted in respect of the armed forces personnel involved in the said incident".
The writ petition was later withdrawn by the NHRC, observers said this was probably because
the verdict would have gone against the commission due to the restrictions imposed under
Section 19 of the Human Rights Protection Act, 19939

Godhra train burning Case

The Godhra Train Burning was an incident that occurred on the morning of 27 February 2002, in
which 59 people died in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train near the Godhra railway station
in the Indian state of Gujarat. The victims were Hindu pilgrims who were returning from the city
of Ayodhya after a religious ceremony at the disputed Babri Masjid site. The commission set up

9
"Holy Cows, Chained Watchdog and a Banana Republic". AsianCenter for Human Rights. 28 January 2004.
Archived from the original on 19 March 2005. Retrieved 19 April2009.
by the Government of Gujarat to investigate the train burning spent 6 years going over the details
of the case, and concluded that the fire was arson committed by a mob of 1,000 to 2,000 people.
A commission appointed by the central government, whose appointment was later held to be
unconstitutional, stated that the fire had been an accident. A court convicted a group of 31
individuals for the incident and the conspiracy for the crime.The conviction was later upheld by
the Gujarat High Court.

National Human Rights Council Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh

This public interest petition, being a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been
filed by the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter called "NHRC") and seeks to
enforce the rights, under Article 21 of the Constitution, of about 65, 000 Chakma/Hajong tribals
(hereinafter called "Chakmas"). It is alleged that these Chakmas, settled mainly in the State of
Arunachal Pradesh, are being persecuted by sections of the citizens of Arunachal Pradesh. The
first respondent is the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the second respondent is the State of
Arunachal Pradesh and the second respondent is the Union of India.
The NHRC has been set up under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 .Section 18 of this
Act empowers the NHRC to approach this Court in appropriate cases.

In Batla House Encounter Case

Batla House encounter took place on 19 September 2008, against terrorist in Batla House locality
in, Delhi. Encounter specialist and Delhi Police inspector Mohan Chand Sharma was martyred
during the incident. After the incident accusations were raised against the Delhi Police by
various other politicians, media and civil society outfits of carrying out a fake encounter Upon
the plea filed by an NGO, "Act Now For Harmony and Democracy", the Delhi High Court on 21
May 2009 asked the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to enquire into the police
version of the encounter, and submit its report in complete within two months.

Conclusion
Since its formation, the NHRC has widely dealt with issues relating to application of human
rights. NHRC has established its reputation for independence and integrity. There is an ever-
increasing number of complaints addressed to the Commission seeking redressal of grievances.
The NHRC has pursued its mandate and priorities with determination and considerable
success.Some of the famous interventions of NHRC include campaigns against discrimination of
HIV patients. It also has asked all State Governments to report the cases of custodial deaths or
rapes within 24 hours of occurrence failing which it would be assumed that there was an attempt
to suppress the incident. An important intervention of the Commission was related to Nithari
Village in Noida, UP, where children were sexually abused and murdered.

Recenlty, NHRC helped bring out in open a multi crore pension scam in Haryana. It also is
looking up the sterilization tragedy of Chattisgarh.In spite of many achievements, the NHRC has
been marred with controversies. As citizens, we should treat all as equal, remember our duties
U/A. 51A10, and above all have respect for humanity.

10
Constitution of India