NHRC in Action: Powers, Challenges, and Reforms in India

Explore NHRC’s powers, effectiveness, and reform needs. From suo moto actions to limitations in enforcement, learn how India’s human rights watchdog can improve.

Introduction

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India has once again found itself in the spotlight. Recently, the Commission issued notices to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) and Mumbai Police over a complaint concerning actor Ranbir Kapoor’s e-cigarette depiction in Aryan Khan’s Netflix series. It cited potential violation of the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, underscoring its proactive role in protecting public health rights and enforcing accountability in governance.

This incident offers an opportunity to revisit the powers, strengths, limitations, and reform needs of the NHRC. Established as a statutory body under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, It is often described as the watchdog of human rights in India. Yet, questions remain about the scope and effectiveness of its interventions.

Powers of the National Human Rights Commission

The NHRC wields significant statutory and quasi-judicial powers to uphold human rights.

1. Suo Moto Cognisance

• The Commission can take up cases on its own initiative when violations of human rights are brought to light through media reports, petitions, or complaints.

• This proactive approach allows the it to monitor and curb administrative negligence, ensuring that cases of abuse are not ignored simply because victims are unable to file complaints.

2. Powers of a Civil Court

While enquiring into complaints, the NHRC has powers similar to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. These include the authority to:

• Summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses.

• Examine persons on oath.

• Require the production of documents and evidence.

• Receive affidavits and seize public records.

These powers equip the Commission to conduct thorough investigations into allegations of human rights violations.

3. Powers of Making Recommendations

The NHRC can make recommendations to central and state governments, or other authorities, in cases of violations. These recommendations may include:

• Compensation to victims.

• Prosecution or departmental action against responsible officials.

• Systemic advisories for policy reform.

• Annual and special reports to Parliament, including reasons for non-acceptance of recommendations.

4. Powers under IPC / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Commission can demand information from relevant authorities, with penalties for non-compliance.

• Sections 176–177 IPC/BNS: Non-furnishing or providing false information is punishable.

• Sections 175, 178, 179, 180, 228 IPC/BNS: NHRC can prosecute obstruction of proceedings, refusal to answer, and contempt-like offences.

5. Forwarding Cases to Magistrates

The NHRC records facts, gathers statements, and forwards cases to a Magistrate for trial as if referred under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 or its updated form, BNSS 2023.

6. Armed Forces Cases: Limited Intervention

• The Commission cannot directly investigate armed forces’ violations.

• Instead, it can seek a report from the Central Government, which must respond within three months.

• The NHRC may then publish its recommendations and share findings with petitioners.

This limitation remains a subject of criticism, particularly in areas affected by conflict.

Effectiveness of the National Human Rights Commission

The NHRC’s track record reflects a mix of achievements and shortcomings.

Strengths

1. Wide Jurisdiction Over Vulnerable Groups

• The NHRC covers human rights violations across diverse areas, including police excesses, custodial violence, manual scavenging, and public health negligence.

• Example: In 2025, it issued show-cause notices and proposed ₹50,000 compensation each after evidence of unsafe manual desilting practices in Mumbai.

2. Interventions Leading to Compensation and Probes

• In the infamous Andhra woodcutters’ encounter (2015), the NHRC ordered compensation and demanded a CBI probe into alleged extrajudicial killings.

3. High Complaint Intake

• Since 2020, the NHRC has taken up more than 4,00,000 cases, underscoring its relevance as a grievance redressal mechanism.

4. Advocacy and Awareness

• The Commission has actively advocated rights of marginalised sections such as SC/ST communities, persons with HIV, and transgender groups.

• For example, the NHRC’s thematic Right to Mental Health Report (2023–24) helped draw attention to gaps in psychiatric care.

5. Public Accountability

• Annual and special reports document government responses to recommendations, keeping Parliament informed about compliance levels.

Limitations

1. Non-Binding Nature of Recommendations

• NHRC recommendations are advisory, not enforceable. Implementation depends on political will and executive discretion.

2. Jurisdictional Constraints

• Cannot investigate violations by private actors, such as corporates or private hospitals.

• Cannot take up cases more than one year old, limiting its scope for long-delayed justice.

3. Delays and Poor Follow-Up

• Local and municipal bodies often ignore NHRC notices. For instance, repeated advisories on manual scavenging deaths saw limited compliance.

4. Independence Issues

• The appointment process is government-dominated, with limited transparency.

• In 2025, the NHRC lost its ‘A’ status accreditation from GANHRI (Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions), due to questions over autonomy and compliance with international standards.

5. Armed Forces Exemption

• Limited jurisdiction over armed forces’ violations creates accountability gaps in conflict zones such as Jammu & Kashmir and the North-East.

How Can National Human Rights Commission Be Made More Effective?

Reform proposals to strengthen the NHRC include:

1. Enforceability of Recommendations

• Amend the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to allow binding, time-bound directions in clear cases.

• Introduce statutory penalties or contempt powers for persistent non-compliance.

2. Fast-Track Human Rights Adjudication

• Operationalise Human Rights Courts, already provided for in the Act, to speedily enforce NHRC-referred cases.

3. Strengthen Investigative and Monitoring Capacity

• Increase sanctioned staff for investigations.

• Introduce digital case-tracking platforms with public access to ensure transparency.

• Link NHRC compliance with conditional central funds for state governments, nudging timely action.

4. Policy and Implementation Nexus

• Convert advisories into mandatory timelines for government responses.

• Require reasons for delay or non-implementation to be published in Parliament.

5. Safeguarding Independence

• Reform the appointment process to involve Parliamentary scrutiny and civil society representation, enhancing transparency.

• This could help India regain its lost GANHRI ‘A’ status.

Conclusion

The NHRC, despite limitations, has emerged as a vital watchdog of rights in India. Its interventions — from custodial death probes to environmental health hazards — illustrate its capacity to provide moral authority, institutional visibility, and limited compensation.

However, unless its recommendations gain enforceable weight, the NHRC risks being reduced to a symbolic forum. To bridge this gap, reforms must equip the Commission with binding powers, fast-track enforcement mechanisms, improved independence, and stronger monitoring systems.

In an era where human rights are increasingly challenged by technology, governance gaps, and social inequality, strengthening the NHRC is not only about compliance with constitutional values but also about ensuring justice for India’s most vulnerable citizens.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias

Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias

The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH