JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY

FCULTY OF LAW
JODHPUR

SESSION = 2024 – 25
PROJECT REPORT ON

ROLE OF HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION IN HUMAN

RIGHTS

SUBJECT – HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENFORCEMENT

SUBMITTED TO = …………………………..

SUBMITTED BY = DILIP KUMAR JANI

ROLL NO. 23LLM30018

LLM 3RD SEMESTER

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the very outset, I would like to pay thanks to the almighty God. It gives me immense
pleasure to acknowledge and pay thanks to the persons who helped me throughout the
course of my work. I am really thankful to the subject teacher, ……………………….....,
who has given me a topic of high relevance under who’s learned and scholarly guidance
the present work has been completed. She helped me in a passive way, gave me moral
support and guided me in different matters regarding the topic. She had been very kind
and patient while suggesting me the outlinesof this Project and correcting my doubts.

I thank her for her overall support, constructive suggestions which have always been
soothing and had desired effects, hence it my duty to express my gratitude for her
constant support and encouragement.

I want to pay my sincere thanks to Faculty of Law, all the teachers of Faculty of Law, Jai
Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. Last but not the least, my thanks to all who have
helped me directly or indirectly in the completion of my work.

DILIP KUMAR JANI

LLM 3RD SEMESTER

Introduction
Indian culture is a reflection of the integration of many ethnicities and religions. As a
consequence, the protection of human rights is complicated by the huge size and population, as
well as the rich culture of the country. To address the wide range of human rights violations,
there’s a pressing need for an independent body to govern them in the country. In the early
1990s, this need for bolstering human rights institutions was recognized by the international
community. Subsequently, on October 12, 1993, India founded the National Human Rights
Commission, a statutory and non-constitutional body for the promotion and preservation of
human rights. The National Human Rights Commission of India has been in existence for more
than 28 years now. Though their functions and powers are hampered by several additional
restrictions, they play a considerable role in protecting against human rights violations. With this
context in mind, the article covers the activities of India’s human rights commission.

Evolution of Human Rights Commission

Pressure from the international community

The Indian government showed minimal attention to local human rights and civil liberties
organisations until the early 1990s. Their reports, requests, and petitions on human rights
violations were received with absolute silence, particularly in light of anti-insurgency operations
in Kashmir, Punjab, and northeastern regions. Amnesty International and Asia Watch’s critical
publications have increased international awareness of these human rights violations. The Indian
government, on the other hand, could not continue to ignore international human rights criticism,
which accused the government of tolerating abuses by allowing leniency to security forces and
effectively approving human rights violations. As a result of pressure from the international
community, the need for the government to form an independent structure for safeguarding
human rights gained momentum.

Establishment of human rights commissions

In 1990, the Parliament of India established certain similar commissions, including the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, the National Commission for Women, and
the National Commission for Minorities,1992. Eventually, the Indian government recognised the
need to create an independent agency to promote and safeguard human rights. India’s
commitment to the effective implementation of human rights laws under national and
international treaties is shown in the establishment of an autonomous National Human Rights
Commission. The Commission was the first of its sort in South Asia and one of the few in the
field during the early 1990s.
The Commission was established on October 12, 1993, under the Protection of Human Rights
Act (1993)1. In addition, eighteen Indian states have established their own human rights
commissions to address abuses occurring inside their borders. The Act covers a wide range of
topics, including its purpose and powers, as well as its composition and other relevant issues.

Relevant International framework

Since India has ratified the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and
the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the rights guaranteed in
the Constitution must comply with them. The Supreme Court is responsible for the enforcement
of fundamental rights under Article 32, while the High Courts are responsible under Article 226.
Although India has long sought institutional remedies to its human rights issues, it is doubtful
that India would have established a national human rights commission in the absence of
international pressure, norms, and participation.

National Human Rights Commission

Composition of the National Human Rights Commission

Chapter II of the Protection of Human Rights Act deals with the constitution of the Commission.
According to Section 3, the Commission will comprise of

 A chairperson who has served as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court;

 One member who is or has served as a Supreme Court Judge;

 One member who is or has served as the Chief Justice of the High Court;

 Two members to be appointed from among those with knowledge of or practical

experience in human rights issues.

 Ex-officio members of the Commission include the Chairpersons of the National

Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, and the National Commission for Women.

 A Secretary-General will serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission and
will exercise the powers and perform the tasks that the Commission may assign to him.

1
Act no. 10 of 1994
Appointment and removal of members of the National Human Rights Commission

The rules for appointment to the National Human Rights Commission are set forth in Sections 2,
3, and 4 of the Protection of Human Rights Act. On the recommendation of a committee
consisting of the Prime Minister of India (Chairperson), the Home Minister of India, the
Chairman of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Chairman of the Opposition in the Rajya
Sabha, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the
President of India appoints the Chairman and members of the National Human Rights
Commission. The chairman and other members serve for five years or until they reach the age of
70, whichever comes first. After their tenure, the chairperson and members are no longer eligible
for employment with the central or state governments.

The Chairperson or any other member of the commission may be removed from office by an
order of the President on the basis of misbehaviour or incapacity if the Supreme Court, following
an investigation, reports that the Chairperson or any other member should be removed on any
such ground. The chairperson may be removed on other grounds if

 he is adjudged insolvent,

 he is engaged in any paid employment outside the duties of his office during his term of
office.

 he has become incompetent to continue his office,

 he has been declared a person of unsound mind by a court, or

 he has been found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the
opinion of the President, involves moral turpitude.

Divisions of the National Human Rights Commission

There are six divisions in the NHRC. These have been assigned with specialised tasks, and they
collaborate and coordinate with each other for the same. They are

The Administrative Division

The Secretary-General oversees this division, which is led by a joint secretary and supported by a
director, under-secretaries, and section officers. This division is responsible for the
administrative, staffing, establishment, and cadre concerns of the Commission’s employees and
officers.

The Law Division

The registrar is in charge of the law division. The division assists the Commission in receiving
and processing human rights violation petitions. The law division is in charge of the complaint
investigation. When a complaint is received by the Complaint Registry (CR) division, it is
separated or divided into fresh and urgent complaints after being assigned a diary number.

The Training Division

The division was established to spread information and direct attention to training various
agencies and NGOs, as well as civil society, in order to increase awareness of human rights
through the organisation of human rights training programmes. A Chief Coordinator leads this
division. A senior research officer and other secretarial staff assist him.

The Policy, Research and Project Division

When the Commission determines that a particular issue is of public importance based on its
proceedings, debates, or other means, it is changed into a project/program that is handled by this
division. It also conducts and fosters human rights research and hosts seminars, workshops, and
conferences on relevant topics.

The Investigation Division

When the Commission requests an independent investigation, it is handled by the Investigation

Division, which is supervised by a Director General of Police officer. The Division also aids the
Commission in investigating complaints, reviewing police and other official reports, and
investigating allegations of custodial violence or other offences.

The Information and Public Relations Division

This division, which is led by an Information and Public Relations Officer who also serves as the
editor of the Human Rights Newsletter, broadcasts information about the Commission’s work
through electronic and print media. This division is in charge of the Commission’s homepage
and periodicals.

Functions of the National Human Rights Commission

 Investigate human rights violations or negligence by a public official, either proactive or

reactively.

 Visiting a jail or any other center under the jurisdiction of the state government where
people have been apprehended or held for treatment, reformation, or protection and
rehabilitation in order to evaluate the prisoners’ living conditions and give suggestions.

 Appraisal of the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any current

legislation for the protection and advancement of human rights, as well as
recommendations for their successful implementation.
 Analyse the causes that hinder the enjoyment of human rights, including acts of
terrorism, and provide recommendations for appropriate remedies. Establish and foster
research projects at colleges, universities, and other professional fields.

 Evaluation of the safeguarding of human rights protection and safety provided by or

under any representation;

 The conditions or challenges that limit the implementation of human rights in the country
are evaluated and reviewed on a regular basis.

 Encourage human rights education among all parts of society, as well as knowledge of
the defence mechanisms available to safeguard these rights, through publications, the
media, conferences, workshops, seminars, and other activities.

 Any view, approval, recommendation, or report on any issue involving the promotion and
preservation of human rights should be directed to the government.

 Prepare monthly reports on the actual position of human rights in general, as well as other
particular issues in the country;

 Assistance to the government on situations involving human rights violations and

strategies for preventing them;

 Collaborate with the United Nations and other UN-affiliated organisations, as well as
regional and national institutions in other countries with expertise in human rights
protection and promotion;

 Participation and assistance in developing and implementing human rights education and
awareness programmes for teaching and research, as well as participation in their
implementation in schools, colleges, universities, and other professional fields;

 Increase public knowledge of human rights and attempt to combat all types of prejudice
by raising public awareness, particularly via correct information and awakening human
rights education, and by utilising all media outlets;

 Perform any additional tasks that it deems beneficial to the promotion and protection of
human rights.

 To adjudicate in court proceedings involving human rights problems with the permission
of the court.
State Human Rights Commission
Composition of the State Human Rights Commission

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 mandates the establishment of a state-level Human
Rights Commission. A State Human Rights Commission can investigate violations of human
rights in matters covered under the Seventh Schedule’s state list and concurrent lists under the
Constitution. According to the Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006, it has three members,
one of whom is the chairperson. A former Chief Justice of a High Court shall serve as
chairperson. The remaining members should be:

 A sitting or retired judge of the High Court of the state or a District Judge having at least
seven years’ experience as a District Judge.

 A person with relevant expertise or knowledge in the field of human rights.

Appointment and removal of members of the State Human Rights Commission

 On the recommendations of a committee headed by the Chief Minister, the Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly, the Home Minister of the state, and the Leader of the Opposition
in the Legislative Assembly, the Governor of the state chooses the chairperson and other
members.

 In the event that the state establishes a legislative council, the chairman and leader of the
opposition would also be members of the committee.

 The chairperson and members serve for five years or until they reach the age of 70,
whichever comes first. They are not eligible for any further employment with the state
government or the central government when their term ends.

 However, subject to age restrictions, the chairman or a member of the commission may
serve another term.

 The members may only be dismissed by the president, not the governor, for the same
reasons as the NHRC.

Functions of the State Human Rights Commission

 Investigate a complaint of human rights violation or negligence by a public servant, suo

moto, or on the basis of a petition brought to it by a victim or any person acting on his
behalf.

 With the consent of the court, intervene in any case involving any claim of human rights
violation.
  Visit any jail or other body under the administration of the State Government where
people are incarcerated to examine the inmates’ living conditions and provide
recommendations.

 Examine the protections for the protection of human rights established by or under the
constitution of any legislation now in force, and provide recommendations for their
effective implementation.

 Examine the reasons that obstruct the enjoyment of human rights, including acts of
terrorism, and provide recommendations for appropriate remedies.

 Conduct and promote human rights research.

 Promote human rights literacy and understanding of the measures available to defend
these rights among diverse segments of society.

 Support non-governmental organisations and institutions that operate in the field of

human rights.

 Perform any other tasks it deems necessary for the advancement of human rights.

Filing and admission of complaints : an overview

Filing of complaints

One of the primary functions of the NHRC is to address complaints. A complaint concerning
human rights infringements can be filed by any individual, group of individuals, or organisation.
The Commission keeps track of the complaints it receives and assigns them a number. Members
are presented with these complaints. The Commission may request more information and
affidavits in support of the accusations made.

Admission of complaints

If the Commission determines that the complaint is devoid of merit, the complaint may be
dismissed. The Commission directs additional inquiry or investigation if a complaint is admitted.
The Commission also requests the state governments to provide reports or views. Following that,
a thorough note on the case’s contents is drafted and presented to the Commission. When the
Commission decides to take up a case, its members or the investigative section can conduct an
investigation. If an infringement of human rights or negligence by a public official is discovered
during the investigation, the Commission may propose that criminal charges be brought against
the responsible parties.The Commission might also propose to the concerned state that the victim
or family members be granted prompt relief. The Commission may also go to the Supreme Court
or the appropriate High Court to have its orders and instructions carried out.
Complaints related to the armed forces

If the allegations include the army, the Commission requests a report from the central
government. If the Commission is satisfied with the government’s report, it will not pursue the
issue further. If the Commission is dissatisfied, it will offer recommendations to the government.
Within three months, the central government must advise the Commission of its actions in
response to the suggestion.

Investigation wing

The Commission has its own investigation committee, led by the Director General of Police, to
look into human rights violation charges. In conducting an inquiry, the Commission may use the
services of any officer or investigating agency of the government. During several investigations,
the Commission has also involved non-governmental organisations.

Types of complaints

The types of complaints usually accepted include

 Deaths in the custody of the police and the courts

 Fake encounters between the police, army, and paramilitary forces

 Unlawful detention, extortion and intimidation by the police

 Cases not being registered

 Failure to safeguard the lives and property of residents by the police

 Failure to undertake thorough investigations

 Refusal of essential facilities in prison

 Atrocities and restriction of access to village tanks, wells, and water sources against
Dalits

 Bonded or forced labour

Other human rights bodies

S.
Name of the body Ambit Objective Themes
No.

Addressing concerns about women’s

National
rights violations and providing Rights of the
1 Commission for National
recommendations to the government women
Women
on policy regarding women.

Development of general policy and

National planning, coordination, assessment,
Rights of the
2 Commission for National and review of the legislative
minorities
Minorities framework and development
programmes for minority populations.

Protection of Scheduled Castes,

Rights of
Scheduled Tribes, and Anglo-Indian
National Scheduled
minorities from exploitation in order
3 Commission for National Tribes and
to develop and preserve their social,
SC/ST Scheduled
educational, economic, and cultural
Castes
interests.

Promotion, and protection of

National
children’s rights, notably those
Commission for
4 National enshrined in the United Nations Child rights
Protection of Child
Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Rights
1989, which India signed in 1992.

Chief
Protection and promotion of the Rights of
Commissioner for
5 National economic, social, educational, and persons with
persons with
cultural interests of disabled persons. disabilities
disabilities
Role of the Human Rights Commission in the promotion of human rights
Raising human rights awareness and education

The Commission has promoted environmental rights, children’s rights, women’s rights, and the
rights of victims of honour killings. Further, NHRC stepped up recently during the coronavirus
outbreak to safeguard and promote the human rights of virus-affected persons. The National
Human Rights Commission also worked hard to spread human rights education throughout the
country. The National Human Resource Development Council, the National Council for
Educational Research and Training, and the National Council for Teacher Education are all
working together in this regard. The NHRC developed resources for education at all grades of
schooling in partnership with various government institutions. The Commission is also working
with the University Grants Commission (UGC) on the establishment of university-level human
rights courses. The Commission’s adoption of an integrated human rights framework has been a
significant step forward in the field of human rights education.

Dismissal of human rights complaints

The National Human Rights Commission receives and processes multiple human rights
complaints. The high rate of clearance of human rights complaints by the NHRC may be
attributed to the fact that the commission was fully staffed during the years. The very purpose of
a governmental body lies in the redressal of grievances. Thus, by addressing the cases
registered, the primary goal of enabling the protection of human rights against their violation is
discharged.

Protection of rights of marginalised people

The rights of Adivasis, manual scavengers, the elderly, the disabled, and other disadvantaged are
preserved through projects across the country. It also takes disaster-related relocation into
account. The Commission was the first to take action against manual scavenging in 1996-97. In
2000-2001, the Commission recommended that the National Policy for Rehabilitation and
Resettlement of Project Affected Families be amended. The National Human Rights Commission
has advocated that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 include measures for the settlement of those
displaced as a result of land acquisition for such projects.

Similarly, the Commission stressed the need for assisting those who are harassed or
discriminated against because of their disability. The Commission has also taken on the task of
promoting and protecting the economic and social rights of those displaced by natural disasters.
For instance, it took suo moto notice of the situation following the terrible cyclone that hit Orissa
in October 1999. The favourable outcomes of its participation in Orissa set the stage for a similar
action by the Commission in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that struck Gujarat in
January 2001, destroying major portions of the state.
Review of legislations

The Commission performed adequately in the field of evaluating laws and treaties. It has made
comments on approximately twenty Acts, Bills, or ordinances with human rights ramifications,
including anti-terrorism laws, armed forces special powers, few provisions of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Criminal Procedure Code, the Police and Prisons Acts, women’s and children’s
rights, bonded labour, Dalit and Adivasi rights, health and education issues, refugees, and the
right to information.

Major human rights cases

The Gujarat riots

The National Human Rights Commission has taken notice of media reports regarding a mass
grave being discovered in Lunawada village in Gujarat’s Panchmahal district. In this case, the
Commission requested a report from the State Government and the CBI. During the months of
February and March 2002, communal violence on a large scale was reported in Gujarat.
Approximately 3,000 members of the minority Muslim community were killed, and the property
was damaged. The Gujarat state government and police failed to take enough precautions to
avoid violence and to give protection, security, and justice to Muslim minority community
victims. What can be done in instances where people are massacred in collusion with the state?
Is the NHRC empowered to investigate this incident of grave human rights violations on its
own? Indeed, the NHRC launched an independent investigation into these incidents and ordered
the state administration to report on the steps taken to restore calm in Gujarat. The Commission
also moved the Supreme Court of India on behalf of the Gujarat riot victims.

Punjab mass cremation case

The National Human Rights Commission awarded each victim of the Punjab Mass Cremation
Case, Rs. 1.75 lakh as damages. A total of 1051 victims received compensation. The bodies of
these people were incinerated by state authorities in contravention of cremation guidelines for
unidentified corpses, according to the Commission. According to the Commission, the conduct
violated the deceased’s dignity and offended the emotions and sentiments of their relatives, who
would have wanted to perform their funeral rites. The Punjab government was ordered to deposit
Rs. 18,39,25,000/- within three months for distribution to the relatives.

This is a horrifying case of serious human rights violations, in which the Punjab police have
incinerated a significant number of human bodies. The Supreme Court submitted this case to the
NHRC. The Commission held the Punjab government liable and responsible for the deceased’s
right to life being violated. On March 8, 2006, the Commission granted compensation to 38
additional people.
Orissa starvation deaths case

The NHRC was notified of reports of starvation-related deaths in the Orissa districts of Koraput,
Bolangie, and Kalahandi. In a similar case, the Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and
others filed a Writ petition before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the
Constitution on December 23, 1996. The Supreme Court of India declared on July 26, 1997, that
the petitioner can approach the NHRC since the issue is pending with them and they are likely to
make a decision. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the Commission moved promptly and
developed an interim measure for a two-year term, as well as requested that the Orissa State
Government form a committee to investigate all issues of the land. It also named a special
rapporteur to oversee relief and reconstruction efforts.

In January 2004, the Commission organized a conference with renowned experts on the subject
to explore concerns linked to the right to food. The Commission has authorised the formation of
a Core Group on the Right to Food, which will advise on concerns brought to it and identify
relevant programmes for the Commission to implement. In the context of India, this judgement
clearly establishes that economic, social, and cultural rights are recognised equally as civil and
political rights before the courts and the Commission.

Encounter death cases in Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) filed a complaint with the National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC) over encounter deaths in which police killed persons
suspected of being members of the People’s War Group. The deaths were allegedly caused by
armed militants resisting custody, but the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee insisted on
extrajudicial executions that amounted to unjustifiable and unprovoked murders. They released
details on 285 such incidents. The NHRC investigated six incidents involving the deaths of seven
persons and, for the first time in India, issued guidelines in 1997 outlining the procedure for
encounter deaths.

Refugee cases in Arunachal Pradesh

The Commission filed a writ petition under Article 21 of the Constitution to enforce the
fundamental rights of around 65,000 Chakma Hajong tribals. In this incident, the Kaptain Hydel
Project displaced a huge number of refugees from former East Pakistan in 1964. These displaced
Chakmas sought refuge in India’s north-eastern states, especially Assam and Tripura. In this
matter, there were two key issues: (1) Granting of citizenship; and (2) fear of persecution by
some sectors of Arunachal Pradesh’s inhabitants. Two distinct NGOs addressed the NHRC about
these two problems. In this case, the Commission argued in court that the issue of leave notices
by the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU) to Chakmas and attempts to execute
them looked to be supported by the Arunachal Pradesh police. The state government purposely
delayed the resolution of the case by failing to provide the appropriate answer to the NHRC, and
in fact, through its agencies, aided in the displacement of the Chakmas from the state.
Following the hearing, the Court ordered the government of Arunachal Pradesh to protect the
lives and personal liberty of the Chakma people living in the state. This decision is especially
significant since it dispels any ambiguities about the applicability of fundamental rights to
refugees. According to this judgement, foreigners are entitled to the protection of Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution, which guarantees their right to life and liberty. Thousands of innocent
Chakma refugees from AAPSU have been protected owing to the Commission’s timely action.

Silicosis deaths in Madhya Pradesh

The National Human Rights Commission voiced genuine concern about the deaths of tribals
from Alirajpur tehsil in Jhabua District, Madhya Pradesh, who died of silicosis/silicotuberculosis
while working as labourers in the quartz crushing plants of Godhra, Gujarat. The Commission
became aware of this tragedy after reading a news article in the Indian Express on September 19,
2007, titled “Death Stalks Godhra Again, in the Form of Silicon Dust.” According to the
findings, these tribals were exposed to silica dust during work and received no protection.
According to the research, roughly 200 tribals have died in the previous four years and that those
labourers who returned to their communities in Jhabua and died of silicotuberculosis there were
not compensated because they lacked documentary proof to process compensation claims.

Following a review of the report, the Commission instructed that it be given to the Gujarat and
Madhya Pradesh Chief Secretaries, as well as the District Collectors of Panchmahal and Jhabua,
for a factual report within four weeks. A team from the Investigation Division was also
dispatched by the Commission for a spot investigation.

Challenges faced by human rights bodies

Structural challenges

Composition

The Act stipulates that three of the five members must be former judges, however, it is unclear if
these judges must have a track record of human rights activity, expertise, or qualifications in the
field. The Act is ambiguous about the other two members, just stating “persons with knowledge
and expertise of human rights.” As a result, commissions are frequently used as retirement
communities for judges, police officers, and officials with political influence.

Limitation on time

Human rights commissions are prohibited from investigating an incident if the complaint is
lodged more than one year after the event. As a result, a substantial portion of valid grievances
gets ignored.
Inability to deal with armed forces

State human rights bodies are unable to request information from the national government,
therefore denying them the authority to probe armed forces under national jurisdiction. Even the
National Human Rights Commission’s powers in relation to armed forces human rights
violations have been limited to requesting a report from the government (without the ability to
call witnesses) and then offering recommendations.

Practical challenges
Delay in filing

The majority of human rights commissions have less than the required five members. This
hampers the ability of commissions to respond to complaints quickly, especially as the number
of complaints continues to rise.

Scarcity of resources

Another major issue is a lack of resources, or rather, resources that are not being used for human
rights-related tasks. Large portions of commission funding go to office expenditures and member
maintenance, leaving disproportionately modest amounts for other critical areas like research and
awareness programmes.

Over-burden

Most human rights commissions have difficulty in receiving a deluge of complaints. The
National Human Rights Commission received approximately 74968 complaints in 2020. State
human rights bodies are also struggling to deal with the growing number of complaints.

Bureaucratic shortcoming

As most of the members of commissions come from government departments—either on

deputation or after retirement, the internal environment is generally similar to that of any other
government institution. Complainants often find it difficult to acquire documents or information
about the progress of their case due to strict hierarchies. The presence of security guards,
battalions of peons, and office attendants create obstacles for common people to speak with
officials about their complaints in person.

Way ahead

Enforceability of decisions

The influence of human rights commissions will be considerably boosted if the government
makes its recommendations immediately enforceable. This will save time and energy since
commissions will no longer need to issue notifications to government agencies to execute the
recommendations, or alternatively, go through a time-consuming legal process to force the
government to comply. Commissions must also have clear and well-defined authorities to pursue
government agencies that provide fraudulent information. This will help to avoid many incidents
resulting from the influence of departmental agencies, especially those involving the police
department.

Inclusion of armed forces

Human rights violations are common in places where insurgency and internal divisions are
present. Allowing commissions to investigate allegations against the military and security forces
in an impartial manner merely exacerbates the problems and promotes cultures of amnesty.
Instead of the existing system, where the National Commission is limited to requesting reports
from the national government, it is critical that commissions have the ability to call witnesses
and documents.

The right choice of members

Since positions of non-judicial members are increasingly being occupied by ex-bureaucrats, the
argument that commissions are more like government extensions than independent watchdog
organisations gains momentum. Commissions must include society’s human rights advocates as
members if they are to play a significant role in society. Many activists may provide the
Commission with knowledge and first-hand experience of current trends in the human rights
movement.

Recruitment of staff

Human rights commissions must build an independent body of professionals with relevant
expertise. The existing system of responding to people on deputation from various government
ministries is insufficient since history has shown that most have limited knowledge and
comprehension of human rights issues. This issue may be solved by hiring specifically trained
and competent personnel to help eliminate the backlog of complaints.

Police complaints commission

Human rights bodies spend a good deal of time investigating complaints about police
misconduct. Perhaps it’s time to consider developing a new organisation dedicated only to the
monitoring of police. For example, the United Kingdom has an Independent Police Complaints
Commission; South Africa has an Independent Complaints Directorate, and several Brazilian
regions have Police Ombudsmen offices that deal solely with police complaints.

While it may seem obvious that these solutions will assist in increasing quality, the problem is
persuading the government to approve these and other innovative ideas.
Conclusion
The above discussion clearly demonstrates that the Commission has done an efficient job in
protecting and promoting human rights during the course of its 28-year history. The number of
human rights cases being registered is increasing, but the number of cases pending is also
increasing. This can be attributed to legal, infrastructural, and administrative problems at the
Commission. To overcome the aforementioned obstacles, the National Human Rights
Commission must be given additional authority. The Commission should be given judicial
supervision powers, comparable to those granted to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution. The Commission should be given powers regarding its contempt so that officials
who disobey the Commission’s recommendations and directives can be penalised and held
accountable. Every financial year, a separate budget/fund shall be released in the name of the
NHRC. Its infrastructure must be completely technologically driven.

Overall, it would be an effort to introduce a human rights framework and substantial obligations
to legislative procedures, creative policy-making, and programmes executed at both the national
and state levels. Its major contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights in India
and the concerned states has evaporated, leaving behind the expected role of investigating
alleged violations, examining public inquiries, exercising jurisdiction, determining whether there
is a need for providing direction and assistance to governments, and raising awareness about
human rights education among lawmakers, academicians, stakeholders, and students, as well as
the general public. Furthermore, hosting human rights-related seminars, workshops, and
conferences has been beneficial to the strengthening of our country’s human rights
jurisprudence. It may be stated that the NHRC cannot function properly without the cooperation
of government stakeholders, other groups, and the general public. So the effective teamwork of
NGOs, stakeholders, legal experts, academicians, and the general public can lead to the effective
functioning of the human rights commissions.