NHRC & SHRC (Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993) — UPSC Polity

NHRC — Establishment, Composition & Appointment

🎯 Exam priority: Foundational. Tested occasionally — master the NHRC's exact composition and appointing/removing authority, the sharp SHRC trap (Governor appoints, but only the President can remove), and the 2019 Amendment's changes, then move on.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a statutory body — not a constitutional one — established in 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It is India's watchdog for human rights: the rights to life, liberty, equality and dignity that the Constitution guarantees or that are embodied in international covenants and enforceable by Indian courts. Its three founding objectives were to strengthen institutional arrangements for handling human-rights issues in a focused way, to examine allegations of excesses independently of government, and to complement existing efforts in this direction.

Composition & Appointment

• NHRC is a multi-member body: a chairperson and five members. The chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court — since the 2019 Amendment, a person who has merely been a Supreme Court judge (not necessarily CJI) also qualifies. Members include a serving/retired Supreme Court judge, a serving/retired High Court Chief Justice, and (post-2019) three persons with knowledge or practical experience of human rights, of whom at least one must be a woman.

• Beyond these full-time members, NHRC also has seven ex-officio members — the chairpersons of the National Commissions for Minorities, SCs, STs, Women, and Backward Classes, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

• Appointment is by the President, on the recommendation of a six-member committee: the Prime Minister (head), the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, and the Union Home Minister. Appointing a sitting Supreme Court judge or sitting High Court Chief Justice additionally requires consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

• Tenure: three years or until age 70, whichever is earlier — reduced from the original five years by the 2019 Amendment — with eligibility for re-appointment. After leaving office, neither the chairperson nor any member may take further employment under the Union or a state government.

• Removal is by the President, on specific listed grounds (insolvency; paid employment outside official duties during the term; unfitness from infirmity of mind or body; being declared of unsound mind by a competent court; or conviction and sentencing for an offence) — plus, separately, on proved misbehaviour or incapacity, but only after the President refers the matter to the Supreme Court for inquiry and the Court upholds the case for removal. Salaries and service conditions are fixed by the Central government and cannot be worsened after appointment — every one of these provisions is designed to secure the Commission's autonomy, independence and impartiality.

NHRC — Functions, Working & the Recommendatory Role

NHRC's functions run wide — from individual complaint inquiries to jail visits to shaping how India engages with international human-rights instruments — but its actual power to act on any of it is far narrower than its mandate suggests.

Functions, Working & the Purely Recommendatory Role

• Core functions include: inquiring into human-rights violations or a public servant's negligence in preventing one (suo motu, on petition, or on a court's order); intervening in related court proceedings; visiting jails and detention places to study inmates' conditions; reviewing constitutional/legal safeguards and recommending their effective implementation; studying factors — including terrorism — that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights; studying international human-rights treaties and recommending their implementation; promoting research and literacy in human rights; and encouraging NGOs working in the field.

• Working: headquartered in Delhi (with power to open offices elsewhere), NHRC regulates its own procedure and holds all the powers of a civil court — its proceedings have a judicial character, and it can call for information/reports from Central or state governments or any subordinate authority. It has its own investigating staff, and may additionally use the services of any Central or state investigation agency. It cannot inquire into any matter after one year has passed from the date of the alleged violation.

• On completing an inquiry, NHRC may recommend that the concerned government or authority: pay compensation/damages to the victim; initiate prosecution or other action against the guilty public servant; or grant immediate interim relief — or it may itself approach the Supreme Court or a High Court for directions, orders or writs.

• The recommendatory-role reality: despite this wide mandate, NHRC's functions are mainly recommendatory. It cannot punish violators, nor award monetary or other relief directly — and its recommendations are not binding on the government or authority concerned, though it must be informed of the action taken within one month (extended to three months for cases involving the armed forces, over which NHRC has a distinctly limited role — restricted to seeking a report from the Central government and making recommendations on it). A former Commission member pushed back on the "powerless" label, observing: "The government cannot wash away the recommendations made by the Commission." NHRC submits annual/special reports to the Central and concerned state governments, laid before the respective legislatures along with a memorandum on action taken and reasons for any non-acceptance.

NHRC — Problems & the Paris Principles Current-Affairs Angle

NHRC has openly documented its own operational weaknesses — and, in the years since, an international peer-review process has raised a related, genuinely current concern about its independence.

Problems & the Paris Principles: A Live Current-Affairs Angle

• NHRC itself has flagged three recurring constraints: administrative (handling roughly one lakh complaints a year with insufficient devolution of power to the chairperson); financial (dependent on annual grants-in-aid from the Ministry of Home Affairs, without full autonomy over spending such as vehicle purchases); and manpower (never having its full sanctioned strength, forcing it to rely on retired officers as contract consultants). In 2017, the Supreme Court itself flagged NHRC's staffing shortage and directed the government to remedy it.

• NHRC's own stated standard for adequate functioning is compliance with the Paris Principles — the internationally recognised benchmark for a genuine "National Human Rights Institution" (NHRI), which requires an institution to have the infrastructure, funding and staff needed to stay independent of government and free from financial control that could compromise that independence.

• Current standing (a live issue, not settled history): the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) — the body that reviews NHRIs worldwide against the Paris Principles and grants "A status" (full voting rights and UN access) or the lesser "B status" (observer only) — deferred NHRC-India's re-accreditation in both 2023 and 2024, and in 2025 its Sub-Committee on Accreditation recommended downgrading NHRC from A to B status, citing concerns over the independence of its appointments process, its reliance on police-led investigations, and its capacity to act without government interference. India's appeal against the recommendation was rejected. As of this writing, GANHRI's final decision remains pending (postponed to later in 2026) — worth knowing as live current affairs, precisely because it tests the same Paris Principles standard the book itself names as NHRC's own benchmark.

State Human Rights Commission — Composition & the Governor/President Trap

The State Human Rights Commission mirrors the NHRC closely in design — but one appointment-and-removal detail breaks the pattern in a way examiners love to test.

State Human Rights Commission — Composition & the Governor-Appoints-President-Removes Trap

• The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 also allows a state government to constitute a State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), made up of a chairperson and two members — one a serving/retired High Court judge or a District Judge with at least seven years' experience as District Judge, the other a person with human-rights knowledge or practical experience.

• Appointment is by the Governor, on the recommendation of a committee headed by the Chief Minister, including the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the state Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly (plus, in a bicameral state, the Legislative Council's chairman and Leader of the Opposition). A sitting High Court judge or District Judge can be appointed only after consulting the Chief Justice of that state's High Court. Yet despite the Governor's appointing role, only the President — on the same grounds and by the same process as for NHRC — can remove an SHRC chairperson or member. This appointment/removal split is the single sharpest trap in this chapter.

• Jurisdiction and UT coverage: an SHRC can inquire only into violations on subjects in the State List or Concurrent List, and must step back if NHRC or another statutory commission is already on the case. The Central government may extend an SHRC's functions to cover Union Territories — except Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (excluded via 2020 reorganisation-adaptation orders) and Delhi, whose human-rights functions are handled directly by the NHRC, not by any SHRC.

• Functions and working otherwise track NHRC's closely: powers of a civil court, a one-year limitation period on inquiries, the same recommendatory menu (compensation, prosecution, interim relief, or approaching a High Court/the Supreme Court), non-binding recommendations with a one-month reporting requirement, and annual/special reports laid before the state legislature.

Human Rights Courts & the 2019 Amendment Act

Beyond the two Commissions, the 1993 Act also created a dedicated court structure for human-rights cases — and a 2019 amendment reshaped several of the details covered above.

Human Rights Courts & the 2019 Amendment Act

• The Act provides for a Human Rights Court in every district, for the speedy trial of human-rights violation cases. A state government can set one up only with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of that state's High Court, and must specify a public prosecutor or appoint an advocate of at least seven years' practice as special public prosecutor to conduct cases there.

• The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 made eight changes worth knowing precisely: (1) made a person who has merely been a Supreme Court judge (not only a retired CJI) eligible as NHRC Chairperson; (2) raised NHRC's knowledge/practical-experience members from two to three, at least one a woman; (3) added the chairpersons of the National Commission for BCs and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, plus the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, as new NHRC ex-officio members; (4) cut the chairperson/members' tenure — for both NHRC and SHRC — from five years to three, while keeping re-appointment eligibility; (5) similarly widened SHRC chairperson eligibility to a person who has been a High Court judge, not only a retired Chief Justice; (6) confirmed that SHRC coverage of Union Territories may be extended by the Centre except for Delhi, which stays with NHRC; (7) gave NHRC's Secretary-General all administrative and financial powers (barring judicial functions and regulation-making), subject to the chairperson's control; and (8) gave an SHRC's Secretary the equivalent administrative/financial powers, again subject to the chairperson.

Further Reading

• Standard NCERT-level texts and reference books on the Indian Constitution and Polity (any UPSC reading list).

• The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Bare Act text).

Why UPSC Asks This

• NHRC's statutory (not constitutional) status, and its purely recommendatory power with non-binding recommendations, are the two most-repeated foundational facts in this chapter.

• The SHRC's Governor-appoints-but-only-President-removes split is a classic single-line trap — don't assume appointing and removing authority always match.

• The 2019 Amendment's precise numeric changes (5→3 years' tenure; 2→3 knowledge-members) are exactly the kind of "what changed and by how much" detail Prelims tests.

Test Yourself: Practice Questions & PYQs

NHRC and SHRC practice — composition, appointment/removal (including the sharp SHRC Governor-appoints/President-removes trap), functions and the purely recommendatory role, jurisdiction limits, Human Rights Courts, and the 2019 Amendment Act. Then Prelims-pattern PYQs.

Practice Questions

Q1. The National Human Rights Commission was established in 1993 as:

• (a) An executive body created by Cabinet resolution

• (b) A constitutional body under a specific Article

• (c) A statutory body under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

• (d) A body created by a Supreme Court judgment

Q2. The National Human Rights Commission is a multi-member body consisting of a chairperson and how many members, in addition to ex-officio members?

• (a) Five members

• (b) Four members

• (c) Three members

• (d) Six members

Q3. The chairperson and members of the NHRC are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee headed by:

• (a) The Speaker of the Lok Sabha

• (b) The Union Home Minister

• (c) The Prime Minister

• (d) The Chief Justice of India

Q4. As amended in 2019, the chairperson and members of the NHRC hold office for a term of:

• (a) Three years or age 70, whichever is earlier

• (b) Five years or age 65, whichever is earlier

• (c) Six years with no age limit

• (d) Life tenure

Q5. On the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, the NHRC chairperson or a member can be removed by the President only after:

• (a) An inquiry by a committee of Union Ministers

• (b) Referring the matter to the Supreme Court for inquiry, which must uphold the case for removal

• (c) A resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament

• (d) A recommendation from the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court

Q6. The National Human Rights Commission is not empowered to inquire into a matter after:

• (a) Two years from the date of the alleged violation

• (b) There is no such time limitation

• (c) Six months from the date of the alleged violation

• (d) One year from the date of the alleged violation

Q7. The recommendations of the NHRC to a government or authority are:

• (a) Not binding, though the government must be informed of action taken within one month

• (b) Legally binding and must be implemented within a fixed period

• (c) Enforceable directly through contempt proceedings

• (d) Binding only on state governments, not the Union

Q8. With respect to violations of human rights by members of the armed forces, the NHRC:

• (a) Has a limited role restricted to seeking a report from the Central government and making recommendations on it

• (b) Can only act through a court-martial

• (c) Has the same full powers as in any other case

• (d) Has no jurisdiction whatsoever

Q9. A State Human Rights Commission is a multi-member body consisting of a chairperson and how many members?

• (a) Two members

• (b) Four members

• (c) Three members

• (d) One member

Q10. The chairperson and members of a State Human Rights Commission are appointed by the Governor, but can be removed only by:

• (a) The Chief Minister

• (b) The Chief Justice of the High Court

• (c) The Governor

• (d) The President

Q11. A State Human Rights Commission can inquire into human rights violations only on subjects falling under:

• (a) The Union List alone

• (b) The State List and the Concurrent List

• (c) Any subject in any of the three Lists

• (d) The State List alone

Q12. Human Rights Courts, provided for under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, can be set up by a state government:

• (a) Independently, without reference to any other authority

• (b) Only with the prior approval of the NHRC

• (c) Only with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of that state's High Court

• (d) Only with Presidential assent

UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Pattern: NHRC's statutory (not constitutional) status; composition and appointing-committee membership; the SHRC appointment/removal split; the one-year inquiry limitation; the non-binding nature of recommendations; the 2019 Amendment's precise numeric changes; Delhi/J&K/Ladakh's UT carve-outs.

Q13. Consider the following statements: (1) The chairperson and members of a State Human Rights Commission are appointed by the Governor. (2) They can also be removed from office by the Governor. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only

• (b) Both 1 and 2

• (c) 2 only

• (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Q14. With reference to the powers of the National Human Rights Commission, consider the following statements: (1) It has the power to punish a public servant found guilty of violating human rights. (2) It has the power to award monetary relief directly to a victim. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) Both 1 and 2

• (b) 1 only

• (c) Neither 1 nor 2

• (d) 2 only

Q15. With reference to the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, consider the following statements: (1) It reduced the term of office of the NHRC chairperson and members from five years to three years. (2) It increased the number of NHRC members with knowledge or practical experience in human rights from two to three. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) Neither 1 nor 2

• (b) 2 only

• (c) 1 only

• (d) Both 1 and 2

Q16. The human rights functions relating to the Union Territory of Delhi are dealt with by:

• (a) The Ministry of Home Affairs

• (b) The Delhi High Court directly

• (c) A State Human Rights Commission specifically constituted for Delhi

• (d) The National Human Rights Commission

Q17. Which of the following Union Territories are excluded from having their human rights functions conferred upon a State Human Rights Commission?

• (a) Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu

• (b) Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh

• (c) Chandigarh and Puducherry

• (d) Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Q18. The Paris Principles, which the NHRC has cited as its own benchmark for effective functioning, primarily require a National Human Rights Institution to have:

• (a) Permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council

• (b) A written constitution guaranteeing its powers

• (c) Direct powers of arrest and prosecution

• (d) Adequate infrastructure, funding and staff to remain independent of government financial control

Mains Practice Questions

Use these to frame full-length answers. You don't have to answer one exactly — they show the angles UPSC tests, so let them guide which points you cover.

• Discuss the composition, appointment and removal process of the National Human Rights Commission, and examine how far these provisions secure its independence.

• "The NHRC's role is largely recommendatory rather than executory." Examine this statement with reference to its powers and the binding nature of its recommendations.

• Compare the composition, appointing authority and removing authority of the NHRC and a State Human Rights Commission.

• Discuss the jurisdiction of a State Human Rights Commission with reference to the Seventh Schedule, and its limitations concerning Union Territories.

• Examine the key changes brought about by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019.

• What are the administrative, financial and manpower constraints faced by the NHRC in fulfilling its mandate?