Multiplicity of various commissions for the vulnerable sections of the society leads to problems of overlapping jurisdiction and duplication of functions. Is it better to merge all commissions into an umbrella Human Rights Commission? Argue your case.
Approach · directive: “is it better / argue your case”
What it asks · Take a position on merging the commissions for SCs, STs, backward classes, minorities, women and children into the NHRC, weighing overlap and cost against constitutional status and specialised focus.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Argue the case for merger: overlap, duplication, cost and confusion
- Argue the case against: constitutional status, distinct mandates, the NHRC's limits, specialised expertise
- Give a reasoned verdict with a practical alternative
Open with · Commissions for SCs, STs, backward classes, minorities, women and children coexist with the NHRC, so one complaint can reach several bodies, but each was created for a purpose.
Cover
- Case for merger: overlapping jurisdiction and duplicate inquiries, inconsistent findings, higher costs and confusion for complainants; one body could have more staff, a common database and stronger authority.
- Constitutional hurdle: the commissions for SCs, STs and backward classes (Articles 338, 338A and 338B) are constitutional bodies, so merging them would need a constitutional amendment, while others are statutory.
- Different mandates: these commissions also monitor safeguards, take part in planning and evaluate schemes (Article 338(5)), which goes beyond the NHRC's focus on human-rights violations.
- NHRC's limits: it deals with violations by or through public servants, cannot ordinarily inquire into events more than a year old, and cannot enforce its recommendations; adding every group could overload it.
- Expertise and access: specialised commissions build group-specific knowledge and trust and give vulnerable groups a separate channel; a merged body might dilute attention to caste, gender or minority issues.
- Coordination already exists: chairpersons of several commissions are deemed members of the NHRC for some functions; this can be built on through joint hearings, referral protocols, shared portals and data-sharing.
- Verdict: full merger is not advisable; rationalise instead by defining jurisdiction, avoiding duplication through protocols, giving stronger follow-up powers and resources, and merging small bodies only where functions truly overlap.
Close with · The better answer is coordination and clear jurisdiction rather than a single umbrella body, keeping constitutional safeguards while removing duplication and delay.
Add value (verified)
- Article 338(5)(c) gives the NCSC a planning and evaluation role that goes beyond handling human-rights complaints. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 338(5)(c) — Legislative Department ↗“to participate and advise on the planning process of socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 306 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Commissions for SCs, STs, backward classes, minorities, women and children coexist with the NHRC, so one complaint may travel to several bodies; the question is whether the cure lies in one umbrella commission or in better coordination.
The case for a single commission
- Overlap and duplication: parallel inquiries into the same incident, inconsistent findings and forum-shopping waste time and confuse complainants.
- Cost and capacity: a single body could pool staff, run one database and carry greater authority with governments.
- Intersectionality: a Dalit woman or a minority child faces layered discrimination that no single-group commission sees whole.
The case against merger
- Constitutional hurdle: the commissions for SCs, STs and backward classes (Articles 338, 338A and 338B, the last by the 102nd Amendment, 2018) are constitutional bodies; folding them into the statutory NHRC needs a constitutional amendment.
- Different mandates: they monitor safeguards, take part in planning and evaluate development (Article 338(5)), which goes beyond the NHRC's complaint-driven focus on human-rights violations.
- NHRC's limits: it deals with violations by or through public servants, cannot ordinarily inquire into matters more than a year old (Section 36(2)), and its recommendations are not binding; adding every group would overload it.
- Expertise and trust: specialised commissions build group-specific knowledge and give vulnerable groups a channel of their own; a merged body risks diluting attention to caste, gender or minority issues.
- Coordination already exists: chairpersons of the specialised commissions are deemed members of the NHRC for certain functions (Section 3(3)), a base to build on.
Verdict
- Full merger is neither feasible nor desirable. Rationalise instead: define jurisdictions, adopt referral protocols and joint hearings, share portals and data, give stronger follow-up powers and resources, and merge only small bodies whose functions truly overlap.
Coordination with clear jurisdiction, not a single umbrella body, is the better answer: it keeps constitutional safeguards while removing duplication and delay.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.