“ As per UN definition, Human rights are inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex,

nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status “

Need for the amendment in the 1993 Act
 NHRC was denied A-grade accreditation in 2017 by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights
Institutions (GANHRI), a UN body based in Geneva, due Commission’s failure in ensuring gender balance
and pluralism in its staff and lack of transparency in selecting its members and rising political
interference.
 However, in February 2018, GANHRI, re-accredited India’s apex rights watchdog with the ‘A’ status.
 Demand from the certain State Governments had also proposed for amendment of the Act, as they had
been facing difficulties in finding suitable candidates to the post of Chairperson of the respective State
Commissions owing to the existing eligibility criteria to the said post.

Significance of the amendment

1. Compliance with the Paris Principles - Proposed amendments will enable both National Commission &
State Commissions to be more compliant with Paris Principles concerning its autonomy, independence,
pluralism & wide- ranging functions in order to effectively protect & promote human rights
2. Filling up the Vacancies - Appointment conditions/eligibility have been relaxed which will ensure that the
vacancies are filled without delay.
3. Enabling conditions to incorporate Civil Society - Effort is to also to increase the presence of civil Society in
the composition of the Commission.
4. Ease of accessibility - The applicants in Union Territories can now appeal in the Human Rights Commission
of nearby states instead of coming all the way to Delhi.

Weaknesses of NHRC
 It has been termed as ‘India’s teasing illusion’ by Soli Sorabji (former Attorney-General of India) due to
its incapacity to render any practical relief to the aggrieved party.
 In the process of selection of the members of the Commission, the Chairman is not consulted.
 It does not have powers to investigate armed forces, BSF or any other paramilitary forces.
 NHRC is only an investigative and recommendatory body. It does not have power of prosecution.
 Govt. often outright rejects recommendations of NHRC or there is partial compliance .
 Dependent on Govt. for manpower and money.
 SHRCs cannot call for information from the national government
 Many times NHRC is viewed as post-retirement destinations for judges and bureaucrats with political
affiliation moreover, inadequacy of funds also hamper it’s working.
 A large number of grievances go unaddressed because NHRC cannot investigate the complaint
registered after one year of incident.

WAY FORWARD
- Complete revamping of NHRC is needed to make it more effective and truly a watchdog of HR violations
- NHRC efficacy can be enhanced by the government if commission decisions are made enforceable.
- There is a need to change composition of commission by including members from civil society & activists.
- NHRC needs to develop an independent cadre of staff with appropriate experience.
- To improve & strengthen human rights situation in India, state & non-state actors need to work in tandem.
- Commission should be empowered to inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year, if there is
sufficient reason for not filing the complaint within the said period.