Introduction & Summary
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) is a statutory body established in states under the same Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993, that created the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
SHRCs serve as human rights watchdogs at the state level, mirroring the NHRC's functions but with jurisdiction limited to subjects on the State List and Concurrent List. They play a crucial role in investigating human rights violations within their respective states, promoting human rights literacy, and making recommendations to the state government, contributing to a more localized and responsive protection of human rights.
Source: Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Laxmikanth's Indian Polity
20.4.1: Establishment
Statutory Body
Like the NHRC, the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) is a statutory body, meaning it is established by an Act of Parliament.
Parent Act: PHRA, 1993
The Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993, also provides for the establishment of a State Human Rights Commission at the state level.
State Discretion
A State Government may constitute an SHRC through a notification. Currently, many states have established SHRCs.
20.4.2: Composition, Appointment, Term, Removal
The provisions for SHRCs are largely parallel to those for NHRC, with modifications to suit the state context.
20.4.2.1: Composition (as per 2019 amendment)
Chairperson
A person who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court or a Judge of a High Court. (Earlier, only a retired Chief Justice of a High Court).
Members
- One member who is/has been a Judge of a High Court or a District Judge in the state with a minimum of seven years experience (as per 2019 amendment).
- Two members (at least one woman) having knowledge or practical experience in human rights.
20.4.2.2: Appointment Process
Initiation
Governor of the concerned State appoints Chairperson and members.
Recommendation Committee
Appointment is made on the recommendation of a state-level committee.
- Chief Minister (Head)
- Speaker of Legislative Assembly
- State Home Minister
- Leader of Opposition in Legislative Assembly
- (If LC exists) Chairman of Legislative Council
- (If LC exists) Leader of Opposition in Legislative Council
Consultation (for Sitting Judges)
Sitting Judge of HC or sitting District Judge appointed only after consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
Final Appointment
Governor makes the final appointment based on committee's recommendation.
20.4.2.3: Term and Removal
Term
The Chairperson and members hold office for a term of 3 years or until they attain the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier (as per 2019 amendment). They are eligible for reappointment.
Removal
The Chairperson or any member of an SHRC can only be removed by the President of India, not by the Governor.
- Grounds and manner are identical to that of NHRC members (proved misbehaviour/incapacity after SC inquiry; or other grounds like insolvency, etc., without SC inquiry).
- During the SC inquiry, the Governor can suspend the Chairman or member of SHRC.
Source: Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (as amended), Laxmikanth
20.4.3: Functions
The functions of SHRCs are similar to NHRC but with a defined jurisdictional limit:
Jurisdiction
An SHRC can inquire into the violation of human rights only in respect of subjects enumerated in the State List and Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Exclusion from Inquiry
If the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) or any other statutory commission (like NCSC, NCST) has already inquired into any human rights violation matter, the SHRC does not inquire into that matter. This avoids duplication and jurisdictional conflicts.
Other Functions
All other functions (e.g., inquiry into complaints, visiting jails, reviewing safeguards, promoting human rights literacy, encouraging NGOs) are similar to those of the NHRC, but within the state's geographical and legislative purview.
Source: Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (as amended)
20.4.4: Human Rights Courts
PHRA Provision
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, also provides for the establishment of Human Rights Courts in every district.
Purpose
These courts are meant for the speedy trial of offences relating to the violation of human rights.
Special Public Prosecutor
For every Human Rights Court, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, specify a Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate as a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting cases.
State Discretion: State governments can designate existing Sessions Courts as Human Rights Courts.
Source: Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Laxmikanth
Prelims-ready Notes
Establishment
Statutory body (by PHRA, 1993).
Composition (2019 Amd)
- Chairperson: Retired CJ or Judge of High Court.
- Members: 1 HC Judge/District Judge (7 yrs exp), 2 HR experts (incl. 1 woman).
Appointment
By Governor on recommendation of state-level committee (CM-head, Speaker Assembly, State Home Minister, LoP Assembly; + LC Chairman/LoP if applicable).
Term
3 years or 70 years. Eligible for reappointment.
Removal
By President only (same grounds/manner as NHRC/SC Judge). Governor can suspend during SC inquiry.
Functions (Jurisdiction)
- Inquire into HR violations on State List & Concurrent List subjects only.
- Does not inquire if NHRC or other statutory commission already inquiring.
- Other functions similar to NHRC (visit jails, review safeguards etc.) but within state.
Powers
Possesses powers of a civil court for inquiry. Recommendations are advisory, NOT binding.
Human Rights Courts
PHRA provides for their establishment in every district for speedy trial of HR violation offences.
Table: SHRC at a Glance (PHRA, 1993)
| Aspect | Key Provision/Details |
|---|---|
| Establishment | Statutory body (Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993) |
| Composition | Chairperson (retired HC CJ/Judge), 1 HC Judge/District Judge (7+ yrs exp), 2 HR experts (incl. 1 woman). |
| Appointment | By Governor, on recommendation of state-level committee (CM, Speaker, State HM, LoP Assembly; + LC Chairman/LoP if applicable). |
| Term | 3 years or 70 years |
| Removal | Only by President (after SC inquiry for misbehaviour; or directly for insolvency, infirmity etc.). Governor can suspend during inquiry. |
| Jurisdiction | Human rights violations on State List & Concurrent List subjects only. No inquiry if NHRC or other statutory commission is already inquiring. |
| Powers | Civil court powers for inquiry; can recommend compensation/prosecution. Recommendations are Advisory, not binding. |
| Human Rights Courts | Provision for establishment in every district for speedy trial of HR violation offenses. |
Mains-ready Analytical Notes
- Jurisdictional Overlap/Clarity: While PHRA attempts to delineate jurisdiction, practical issues of overlap and first right to inquire can arise.
- "Toothless Tiger" (at State Level): SHRCs face even more pronounced criticisms of being ineffective due to:
- Greater susceptibility to state executive pressure.
- More severe resource constraints (staff, budget, infrastructure) compared to NHRC.
- Slower processing of complaints and lower compliance with recommendations by state governments.
- Political Appointments: State-level committee composition can lead to highly politicized appointments, impacting impartiality.
- Functioning of Human Rights Courts: Many states have not effectively established or operationalized Human Rights Courts for speedy trials, leading to delays in justice.
- Decentralization of HR Protection: SHRCs represent a step towards decentralizing human rights protection, bringing redressal mechanisms closer to the people at the state level.
- Varying Effectiveness: The performance and autonomy of SHRCs vary significantly from state to state, reflecting differences in political will and administrative capacity.
- Role in Localized Violations: SHRCs are better positioned to respond to and investigate localized human rights violations, especially those related to law and order, police excesses, and issues within state government institutions.
- Local Access to Justice: Provide an accessible forum for citizens to file human rights complaints at the state level, without having to approach NHRC in Delhi.
- Monitoring State Agencies: Crucial for monitoring human rights compliance by state police, prison authorities, and other state government departments.
- Promoting Human Rights Literacy: Instrumental in spreading awareness about human rights in local languages and contexts.
- Grassroots Protection: Essential for addressing human rights issues at the grassroots level, which might otherwise go unnoticed.
- Custodial Violence: SHRCs frequently take suo motu cognizance of custodial deaths, police excesses, and atrocities within their states, conducting inquiries and recommending action. (Source: SHRC Annual Reports of various states).
- Prison Reforms: Many SHRCs regularly inspect prisons and recommend reforms to state governments concerning overcrowding, living conditions, and prisoner rights.
- Migrant Labour Issues: During economic crises or disasters, SHRCs have intervened in issues related to the human rights of migrant laborers within their states.
- Cases of Discrimination: SHRCs often inquire into cases of discrimination or rights deprivation against marginalized communities within the state's purview.
- Capacity Building and Digitalization of SHRCs: There's an ongoing push by the NHRC and the Union government to enhance the capacity of SHRCs through training programs for their staff and members, and by promoting digitalization of their complaint management systems to improve efficiency and accessibility. (Source: NHRC advisories, Ministry of Home Affairs reports).
- Adherence to National Guidelines: SHRCs are encouraged to adhere to national guidelines and best practices set by the NHRC for investigation, reporting, and promotion of human rights. (Source: NHRC communications to SHRCs).
- State-specific Human Rights Issues: Various SHRCs have been actively involved in addressing state-specific human rights challenges, such as issues related to illegal mining, environmental pollution affecting human health, or specific instances of police brutality unique to their state. (Source: Specific state news reports, SHRC annual reports).
- Functionality of Human Rights Courts: Discussions continue at the state level regarding the effective operationalization of Human Rights Courts and the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, as mandated by the PHRA, for speedy trial of human rights violations. (Source: State Law Departments, High Court pronouncements).
UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Prelims MCQs:
- (a) Its Chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of a High Court.
- (b) It can inquire into violations of human rights only in respect of matters in the State List.
- (c) Its recommendations are binding on the State Government.
- (d) It cannot inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation is alleged to have been committed.
Answer: (d)
Hint/Explanation:
- (a) is incorrect (as per 2019 amendment, Chairperson can be a retired CJ or a Judge of a High Court).
- (b) is incorrect (it can inquire into matters in both State List and Concurrent List).
- (c) is incorrect (recommendations are advisory, not binding).
- (d) is correct (this 1-year limitation applies to both NHRC and SHRCs).
- (a) Its Chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of India.
- (b) It has the power to inquire into violations of human rights committed by private individuals.
- (c) Its recommendations are binding on the government.
- (d) It cannot inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed.
Answer: (d)
Hint/Explanation: This question is about NHRC but highlights a common limitation shared with SHRCs (the 1-year limit). (a) is incorrect (SC Judge also eligible now). (b) is incorrect (primarily public servant). (c) is incorrect (advisory).
- (a) Any matter listed in the Union List.
- (b) Any matter listed in the State List.
- (c) Any matter listed in the Concurrent List.
- (d) Both (b) and (c).
Answer: (d)
Hint/Explanation: SHRCs have jurisdiction over matters in both the State List and Concurrent List. Matters in the Union List are generally the purview of the NHRC.
Mains PYQs:
Direction/Value Points: (Applicable to NHRC, but challenges often mirror/are more pronounced for SHRCs)
- Introduction: Define NHRC as a statutory body under PHRA, 1993, and its mandate.
- Role in Protecting Human Rights: Inquiry & Investigation (suo motu or on petition), Prison Visits, Review Safeguards, Human Rights Literacy, Intervention in court proceedings, International Instruments.
- Challenges in Fulfilling Mandate: "Toothless Tiger" (advisory, not binding), No Direct Enforcement/Punishment, One-Year Time Limit, Limited Role with Armed Forces, Resource Constraints, Political Interference/Autonomy, Pendency of Cases, Non-compliance.
- Conclusion: NHRC plays a vital role as a human rights watchdog, but its effectiveness is constrained by inherent limitations. Strengthening its powers and resources is crucial. Applicability to SHRCs: Many of these challenges are even more pronounced for SHRCs.
Direction/Value Points: (Applicable to NHRC, with points relevant to SHRCs)
- Introduction: Acknowledge the PHRA/NHRC as important steps.
- Reasons for Persistence: NHRC/SHRC Limitations (reiterate "toothless tiger" critique), Systemic Issues (Law Enforcement Accountability, Judicial Delays, Impunity, Socio-economic Inequalities, Terrorism/Insurgency, Lack of Awareness), Resource Constraints, Political Will.
- Measures to Strengthen Protection: Empower NHRC/SHRCs (granting binding powers, direct investigation capabilities, extending time limit, greater autonomy over armed forces), Police Reforms, Judicial Reforms, Strengthening SHRCs (adequate resources and powers), Awareness Campaigns, Effective Implementation of Laws, Ratification of International Conventions.
- Conclusion: While institutional framework exists, effective human rights protection requires addressing systemic issues, empowering institutions, and fostering a rights-respecting culture.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Briefly introduce both NHRC and SHRCs as statutory bodies for human rights protection.
- Role in Protecting Human Rights (Combined): Inquiry & Investigation, Monitoring Safeguards, Jail Visits, HR Literacy, Grievance Redressal, Advising Governments, Judicial Intervention.
- Common Challenges Faced (by both): Advisory Nature, No Direct Enforcement/Punishment, 1-Year Time Limit, Resource Constraints, Political Interference, Non-compliance, Limited Investigative Powers, Limited Role on Armed Forces.
- Additional Challenge for SHRCs: More pronounced resource constraints, greater susceptibility to state executive influence.
- Conclusion: Both commissions are vital but face systemic hurdles. Empowering them with more teeth and resources is crucial to enhance human rights protection.
Trend Analysis (UPSC Exam)
Prelims Trend
- The trend for SHRCs is strong and often comparative with NHRC.
- Focus areas: Nature of Body (Statutory - PHRA, 1993), Composition (post-2019 amendment), Appointment Authority (Governor but removal by President), Term (3 years/70 years), Jurisdiction (State List and Concurrent List only; avoids overlapping with NHRC), Limitations (advisory, 1-year limit, no direct power), Human Rights Courts (establishment and purpose).
Mains Trend
- Mains questions on SHRCs are consistently analytical, often combined with NHRC, focusing on their effectiveness, challenges, and limitations.
- "Toothless Tiger": The criticism applies strongly, and is a recurring theme.
- Comparison with NHRC: Questions often require identifying shared challenges and those unique to SHRCs (e.g., greater resource constraints, state executive influence).
- Recommendations for Strengthening: Always a key part of the answer.
- Ground-level Impact: Discussion on how SHRCs, despite limitations, provide local access to human rights redressal.