Introduction:
- The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) plays a crucial role in India’s democratic framework. It acts as a watchdog against abuse of state power.
- Recently, the NHRC directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay compensation for a custodial death.
- This order reaffirmed the inviolability of human dignity. It also highlighted the importance of accountability in law enforcement.
Why the NHRC Is in the News:
- In a significant intervention, the NHRC ordered ₹10 lakh compensation. The payment was directed to the family of a 36-year-old man. He died in police custody in Uttar Pradesh in 2021.
- Importantly, the Commission held the state accountable for custodial negligence. It treated custodial death as a grave violation of human rights.
Therefore, the order strengthened the principle that dignity survives incarceration. - Such actions underline the NHRC’s constitutional and moral relevance.
Custodial Deaths in India – Alarming Statistics:
- Custodial deaths remain a persistent governance challenge. Official data reveals disturbing trends.
- Between 2020 and 2022, India recorded over 4,400 custodial deaths. These included police and judicial custody cases. Uttar Pradesh alone accounted for 952 deaths.
- Furthermore, in September 2023, the Gujarat State Law Commission raised concerns. It described custodial deaths as a matter of “great public concern.”
- Meanwhile, the Status of Policing in India Report, 2025 added another dimension.
- The report surveyed 8,276 police officers across 17 States and Union Territories. It found significant approval for coercive action among personnel.
About the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)?
- The National Human Rights Commission was established in 1993. It was created under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
- The law envisioned NHRC as a bulwark against state excess. It aimed to protect individuals from abuse of authority. Therefore, NHRC functions as an independent statutory body.
- Its mandate aligns with India’s constitutional commitment to human dignity.
Composition of the NHRC:
The Section 3 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines the composition of the commission –
- A Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court.
- One Member who is, or has been, a Judge of the Supreme Court.
- One Member who is, or has been, the Chief Justice of a High Court.
- Three Members (out of which at least one shall be a woman) to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights.
Mandate and Functions of the NHRC:
The NHRC holds a wide investigative and advisory mandate.
- It investigates violations of human rights.
- It also examines negligence by public servants.
- Further, it recommends remedies and compensation.
- Additionally, the Commission shapes India’s human rights jurisprudence.
- It advises governments on policy reforms.
- It also intervenes in court proceedings when required.
Hence, NHRC functions at the intersection of law, ethics, and governance.
Key Contributions of the NHRC:
Over the years, NHRC has delivered several landmark interventions.
- It flagged overcrowded and degrading prison conditions.
- It issued India’s first comprehensive guidelines on extra-judicial killings.
- It defended labour rights in hazardous industries.
- Moreover, it stood with victims of communal violence.
- It consistently pressed for compensation and redress.
Through these actions, NHRC expanded the scope of human rights discourse.
Constitutional and International Context:
- Although NHRC is a statutory body, its roots lie in the Constitution.
- Article 21 guarantees the right to life and dignity.
- NHRC operationalizes this right through oversight.
- Internationally, India is a signatory to major human rights treaties. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and the United Nations Convention Against Torture, 1984.
- NHRC acts as India’s interface with global human rights norms.
Therefore, its credibility affects India’s global standing.
Structural Challenges Faced by the NHRC:
Despite its mandate, NHRC faces serious limitations.
- First, its recommendations are not legally binding. Governments may ignore or delay compliance.
- Second, the Commission lacks independent enforcement powers. It cannot prosecute offenders directly.
- Third, it depends heavily on state cooperation for investigations. This dependence often weakens outcomes.
- As a result, effectiveness suffers in sensitive cases.
Political and Institutional Concerns:
In recent years, concerns about institutional autonomy have grown.
- Critics highlight increasing deference to governments. They also point to reluctance in pursuing politically sensitive cases.
- Opacity in appointments remains another concern. Lack of diversity weakens representation.
- Notably, a former NHRC chairperson called it a “toothless tiger.” This remark reflected frustration with structural constraints.
International Scrutiny and Accreditation Issues:
- NHRC’s global credibility has also faced challenges. In 2024, its accreditation with the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions was deferred. This was the second consecutive deferral.
- The Alliance cited lack of transparency in appointments. It also flagged insufficient diversity.
- Such deferrals weaken India’s voice in international human rights forums.
Implications for Governance and Democracy:
- Custodial deaths undermine the rule of law. They erode public trust in institutions.
- Therefore, NHRC’s role becomes critical in democratic accountability.
It ensures that power remains subject to scrutiny. - Strong human rights institutions also improve policing standards. They encourage professionalism and restraint.
Thus, NHRC contributes directly to good governance.
Way Forward: Strengthening the NHRC:
Reforms are necessary to restore NHRC’s effectiveness.
- First, Parliament should consider making key recommendations binding.
- Second, the Commission needs greater enforcement authority.
- Third, appointments must become transparent and inclusive.
- Fourth, diversity should reflect India’s social reality.
- Additionally, police reforms must align with NHRC guidelines. Human rights training should become mandatory.
- Finally, cooperation between states and NHRC must improve.
Conclusion:
The National Human Rights Commission remains a vital institution. Its recent intervention in a custodial death case proves its relevance. However, structural and political constraints limit its potential. Without reforms, credibility risks further erosion.
Therefore, strengthening NHRC is not optional. It is essential for constitutional morality and democratic integrity. A rights-respecting state requires a strong human rights watchdog. In that mission, NHRC must be empowered, not weakened.
Sources:
- https://nhrc.nic.in/
- https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/national-human-rights-commission-has-been-drifting-its-directive-on-up-custodial-death-compensation-is-welcome-10420407/
The NHRC protects human rights by investigating violations, recommending compensation, advising governments, and promoting accountability under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
No, the National Human Rights Commission is a statutory body, but it derives its authority from constitutional values, especially Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
No, NHRC’s recommendations are not legally binding, which remains a major challenge affecting its effectiveness.
Custodial deaths violate the right to life and dignity. NHRC treats them as grave human rights violations and often orders compensation and corrective action.
Major challenges include a lack of enforcement powers, non-binding recommendations, dependence on state cooperation, and concerns over transparency and institutional autonomy.
