Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Insights into Editorial: NHRC a toothless tiger: Panel chief

Insights into Editorial: NHRC a toothless tiger: Panel chief

02 June 2016

Article Link

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) chairman Justice H L Dattu recently said the rights watchdog needed some teeth to enforce its orders on remedial measures in cases relating to violations. He said NHRC is a toothless tiger.

Why he said so?

It is because NHRC investigates human rights violation cases, sometimes in remote areas, with very limited resources. The evidence collected is put to forensic judicial adjudication by its chairman and members, who are former judges. But at the end, when NHRC arrives at a finding, it can only recommend remedial measures or direct the state concerned to pay compensation.

Why governments should seriously consider the recommendations made by NHRC?

It is because NHRC’s orders are passed by persons who had long training and experience as judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. Directives are issued by them after sifting chaff from grain, which they are judicially trained to do.

Problems with the current act:

  • NHRC’s recommendations do not percolate to the ground level as the NHRC does not have the backing of the Protection of Human Rights Act to penalise authorities which do not implement its orders.
  • The Act does not extend to Jammu and Kashmir and hence the commission has to keep its eyes closed to human rights violations there.
  • The Act does not categorically empower the NHRC to act when human rights violations through private parties take place.
  • The Act requires that three of the five members of a human rights commission must be former judges but does not specify whether these judges should have a proven record of human rights activism or expertise or qualifications in the area. Regarding the other two members, the Act is vague, saying simply: “persons having knowledge and experience of human rights.”
  • Under the Act, human rights commissions cannot investigate an event if the complaint was made more than one year after the incident. Therefore, a large number of genuine grievances go unaddressed.
  • The powers of the National Human Rights Commission relating to violations of human rights by the armed forces have been restricted to simply seeking a report from the Government, (without being allowed to summons witnesses), and then issuing recommendations.

Other practical limitations:

  • Non-filling of vacancies: Most human rights commissions are functioning with less than the prescribed Members. This limits the capacity of commissions to deal promptly with complaints, especially as all are facing successive increases in the number of complaints.
  • Non-availability of funds: Scarcity of resources – or rather, resources not being used for human rights related functions – is another big problem. Large chunks of the budget of commissions go in office expenses, leaving disproportionately small amounts for other crucial areas such as research and rights awareness programmes.
  • Too many complaints: NHRC is deluged with too many complaints. Hence, in recent days, NHRC is finding it difficult to address the increasing number of complaints.
  • Bureaucratic style of functioning: As human rights commissions primarily draw their staff from government departments – either on deputation or reemployment after retirement – the internal atmosphere is usually just like any other government office. Strict hierarchies are maintained, which often makes it difficult for complainants to obtain documents or information about the status of their case.

What can be done?

  • The effectiveness of commissions will be greatly enhanced if their decisions are immediately made enforceable by the government. This will save considerable time and energy as commissions will no longer need to either send reminders to government departments to implement the recommendations or alternatively to approach High Courts through a cumbersome judicial process to make the government take action.
  • A large number of human rights violations occur in areas where there is insurgency and internal conflict. Not allowing NHRC to independently investigate complaints against the military and security forces only compounds the problems and furthers cultures of impunity. It is essential that commission is able to summons witnesses and documents.
  • As non-judicial member positions are increasingly being filled by ex-bureaucrats, credence is given to the contention that NHRC is more an extension of the government, rather than independent agency exercising oversight. If it is to play a meaningful role in society, it must include civil society human rights activists as members. Many activists have the knowledge and on-the-ground experience of contemporary trends in the human rights movement to be an asset to the Commission.
  • NHRC needs to develop an independent cadre of staff with appropriate experience. The present arrangement of having to reply on those on deputation from different government departments is not satisfactory as experience has shown that most have little knowledge and understanding of human rights issues. This problem can be rectified by employing specially recruited and qualified staff to help clear the heavy inflow of complaints.
  • A culture of human rights ought to be promoted through education. Human rights education in India is extremely important, given the fact that society is witness to numerous violations and abuse of powers and that the ability of the people to fight these injustices is limited. The strategy for inculcating human rights culture among the people needs to be based on a number of factors: social, legal, political, judicial, and institutional.

Way ahead:

The subject of human rights commissions has invited much academic attention in recent years, besides assessment by U.N. bodies. It has also attracted civil society scrutiny following independent assessments of the work of several commissions by numerous international NGOs.

  • An important point to be noted is that Human Rights Commissions are not the panacea for all problems related to the subject in a society. They tend to be effective only under a given set of circumstances, but most importantly, a lot depends on the level of funding, functional independence, and institutional autonomy guaranteed to the HRC.
  • Also, the composition of the HRC matters, to a large extent, in determining the kind of focus and activism it will promote. However, HRCs are important institutional approaches that can ensure the protection and promotion of human rights.
  • The effectiveness or otherwise of human rights commissions does not directly depend upon the existing human rights structure in any society. What is important is how a particular commission locates itself in a society and is able to confront the issues before it.


It is nearly 15 years since the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was established in India through the adoption of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, by Parliament. Over the years, more than 15 State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) have come up. The effort to improve the promotion and protection of human rights in India pre-dates the establishment of the NHRC. Now is a good time to examine not only the functioning and effectiveness of the NHRC and the SHRCs but also to identify the central challenges relating to human rights in the future and work towards tackling them. It is important that Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) succeed in their efforts to promote and protect human rights. The legitimacy and credibility of these commissions rest on their ability to address the problems relating to human rights in a society. It is for Parliament to decide whether to confer NHRC with some kind of contempt powers to make authorities implement its recommendations.



All about NHRC:


It is a statutory body established in 1993.



  • It consists of a Chairman and 4 members. Chairman should be a retired Chief Justice of India. Members should be either sitting or retired judges of the Supreme Court or a serving or retired Chief Justice of a High Court and 2 persons having practical knowledge in this field.
  • Ex officio members are the chairmen of National Commission for Scheduled Caste, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, National Commission for Minorities and National Commission for Women.



  • The chairman and members are appointed on the recommendation of a 6 member committee consisting of Prime Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, leaders of opposition in both the houses of parliament and Union Home Minister.
  • Term: Term of the chairman and members is 5 years or 70 years whichever is earlier. After retirement they are not eligible for further reappointment.
  • Removal: President has to refer the matter to Supreme Court and if after enquiry Supreme Court holds it right then they can be removed by the President.


Other facts:

  • Its recommendations are just advisory and not binding in nature.
  • The commission is not empowered to enquire into matters which were committed one year before.
  • It submits Annual report to the Central government and to the concerned state governments.