Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.

Introduction

The NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions, created under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993, have widened India's rights culture — mandatory reporting of custodial deaths, guidelines on encounter killings, suo motu intervention after the 2002 Gujarat riots, prison reforms and silicosis compensation. Yet a former chairperson himself called the NHRC a 'toothless tiger'.

Structural limitations

• Recommendatory powers: the Commission cannot enforce findings or punish violators; governments may ignore or indefinitely delay action-taken responses.
• Section 19, PHRA: for the armed forces it can only seek a report from the Centre, ruling out independent inquiry where allegations are gravest.
• Section 36(2): a one-year limitation bars older grievances.
• No independent investigative machinery — it relies on police officers on deputation, often examining their own fraternity.
• Executive-dominated, judicial-heavy appointments, frequent vacancies and chronically weak SHRCs.

Practical limitations

• Nearly a lakh complaints a year overwhelm capacity, producing formulaic disposal.
• Financial and staffing dependence on the executive erodes autonomy — GANHRI deferred the NHRC's re-accreditation in 2023 and 2024 citing independence and diversity concerns.
• Visible reluctance to confront the powerful in politically sensitive cases invites the 'post-office' criticism.

Remedial measures

• Make recommendations binding, or require governments to table reasoned non-compliance before the legislature.
• Create an independent investigation wing; amend Section 19 to permit scrutiny of armed forces with safeguards.
• Diversify composition with civil-society members and women, ensure transparent appointments, assured funding and empowered SHRCs.

Conclusion

Aligning the commissions fully with the Paris Principles would convert their moral authority into effective protection of the weakest against the mightiest.