Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.
Approach · directive: “analyze / suggest”
What it asks · Acknowledge the Commissions' contribution, analyse the legal, structural and practical limits that weaken them against powerful actors, and suggest reforms.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Acknowledge the contribution of the NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions
- Analyse their structural and practical limitations against the mighty and powerful
- Suggest remedial measures
Open with · The NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions, created under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, have investigated custodial abuse and prompted compensation, but their reach is limited.
Cover
- Contribution: suo motu cognisance, guidelines on custodial deaths and encounters, spot inquiries, and reports on prisons, manual scavenging, mental health and child rights.
- Recommendatory role: they can only recommend compensation or prosecution (Section 18); compliance rests with governments and is often partial or delayed.
- Jurisdictional limits: a one-year time bar (Section 36); for armed forces the Commission only seeks a report from the Centre (Section 19).
- Dependence: staff on deputation from the police and government, limited investigative capacity, and funds and appointments controlled by governments.
- Appointments: the selection committee is headed by the Prime Minister and weighted towards the government, limiting pluralism; several State Commissions have vacancies.
- Practical issues: backlog and slow inquiries, low visibility in remote areas, and reluctance to confront powerful institutions weaken credibility.
- Remedies: enforceable recommendations or reasoned government responses, removal of the time bar and armed-forces limit, own investigators, plural appointments, adequate funds and Paris Principles compliance.
Close with · Human rights bodies need legal teeth, independence and resources; only then can they protect the vulnerable against the powerful.
Add value (verified)
- For complaints against the armed forces, Section 19 lets the Commission only seek a report from the Centre and then either drop the complaint or make recommendations to that Government. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (as amended), Section 19(1) - National Human Rights Commission ↗“after the receipt of the report, it may, either not proceed with the complaint or, as the case may be, make its recommendations to that Government”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2021, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 286 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
The NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions, created under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, have investigated custodial abuse and won compensation for victims, yet against the State's own coercive arms their record is weak.
Contribution
- Suo motu cognisance of custodial deaths and encounters, guidelines requiring their reporting, spot inquiries, and reports on prisons, manual scavenging, mental health and child rights.
- Recommended compensation gives victims a remedy quicker than courts, and the Commissions' visibility deters routine abuse.
Structural limitations
- Recommendatory only: under Section 18 they can recommend compensation or prosecution; compliance rests with governments and is often partial or delayed.
- Armed forces carve-out: under Section 19 the Commission can only seek a report from the Centre and then drop the matter or recommend, so the most powerful security agencies escape inquiry.
- Time bar: Section 36 shuts out complaints on matters older than one year, excluding victims who take time to come forward.
- Appointments: a selection committee headed by the Prime Minister and weighted towards the government limits pluralism; State Commissions carry long vacancies.
Practical limitations
- Dependence: investigators on deputation from the police, the very force they examine; funds and staffing controlled by governments.
- Backlog and reach: slow inquiries, little presence in remote areas and hesitancy to confront powerful institutions erode credibility.
Remedial measures
- Make recommendations enforceable, or bind governments to respond with reasons within a fixed time.
- Remove the one-year bar and the armed-forces limitation; give the Commissions their own cadre of investigators.
- Plural, transparent appointments with civil-society members, adequate budgets, filled vacancies and full compliance with the Paris Principles.
Human rights bodies need legal teeth, independence and resources; only then can they protect the vulnerable against the powerful rather than merely record their grievances.
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.