How far has the National Human Rights Commission been successful in achieving its objectives? Comment. (2025, 10 Marks)
Since 1993 the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has had four objectives: shield citizens from abuse by the state, advise on rights, act independently, and give India a credible voice abroad. It has largely achieved the second, partly achieved the first, and is now failing on the third and fourth.
Scorecard
| Objective | Record | Degree |
|---|---|---|
| Protection against state abuse | Built the 24-hour custodial death reporting rule and encounter guidelines; was entrusted by the Supreme Court in 1997 with monitoring bonded labour abolition; routinely acts suo motu on manual scavenging and sewer deaths | Partial |
| Advice and norm-setting | Issued 31 advisories (mental health, informal workers, transgender persons); recommended amending 97 laws that discriminate against persons with leprosy; backed the Chakmas and sought transfer of Gujarat 2002 trials | Substantial |
| Independence and pluralism | Mounting doubts (below) | Weak |
| International credibility | ‘A’ status since 1999 lent weight to India’s UN Human Rights Council reviews; now in jeopardy | Eroding |
It has made human rights a vocabulary of Indian governance, especially in custodial settings where no data existed before it.
Where it has fallen short
- Accreditation crisis. At its March 2025 session GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation recommended downgrading the Commission from ‘A’ to ‘B’. Its concerns were political interference, opaque appointments, police officers investigating police, a lack of gender and minority pluralism, and a muted response to crises such as Manipur, which rights groups flagged to GANHRI. The GANHRI Bureau rejected the NHRC’s challenge in December 2025, and the final review is due in November 2026. The Commission meanwhile retains ‘A’ status.
- Appointment controversy. The selection of Justice V. Ramasubramanian as chairperson in December 2024 drew a written dissent from Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi, who called the process predetermined. Four of the six committee members sit on the government side.
- Design limits. Its recommendations do not bind the government, it cannot look at matters more than a year old (Section 36(2)), and it cannot pursue private actors unless a public servant’s negligence is involved.
- Selective activism. It has spoken less on the rights of human rights defenders and journalists.
Justice H. L. Dattu, while chairing the Commission, called it a toothless tiger.
Conclusion
The NHRC has succeeded as a norm-builder and documenter but only modestly as a protector, and its independence is now formally questioned by its peers. Real success needs binding recommendations, an independent investigative cadre and a plural appointment process. Otherwise the November 2026 review may confirm what its critics already argue.