Core Pillars of SHRC
9.3.1: Establishment
Established under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993. Initially optional, many states have now constituted SHRCs.
- Source: PHRA, 1993; M. Laxmikanth.
9.3.2: Composition (2019 Amendment)
Chairperson: A person who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court OR a Judge of a High Court.
Two other Members: One who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court or a District Judge with 7+ years' experience; one person with knowledge/experience in human rights.
- Prior to 2019, only a retired High Court Chief Justice could be the Chairperson.
- Source: PHRA (Amendment) Act, 2019.
9.3.4: Tenure & Removal
Tenure (as per PHRA, 2019 Amendment): 3 years or until they attain the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. They are eligible for reappointment.
Removal: The Chairperson or any member can be removed from office by the President (not by the Governor). Grounds are the same as for NHRC members.
- Source: PHRA (Amendment) Act, 2019.
9.3.5: Functions
The SHRC's jurisdiction is limited to human rights violations relating to matters enumerated in the State List and the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.
Exclusion: If the NHRC or any other statutory commission has already begun an inquiry into the same matter, the SHRC does not inquire.
- Generally similar functions to NHRC.
9.3.6: Working & Limitations
Resource Constraints: SHRCs often face severe limitations in terms of adequate funding, human resources (staff), and infrastructure.
Political Influence Concerns: Appointment process can be perceived as susceptible to political influence. Non-binding Recommendations: Recommendations are advisory, limiting enforcement power.
- Lack of adequate compliance by state governments.
SHRC Appointment Process
The Chairperson and members are appointed by the Governor of the state based on the recommendation of a high-level committee.
Governor
Appointing Authority
Recommendation Committee
Advises the Governor for appointments
Appointed SHRC Members
Chairperson & 2 Members
SHRC at a Glance
| Feature | Description | Key Act/Amendments / Powers |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Statutory body, under Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993 | State-level human rights watchdog |
| Composition | Chairperson (Retired HC CJ or HC Judge); + 2 Members (1 Judge or Dist Judge, 1 HR expert) | PHRA (Amdt) 2019 |
| Appointment | By Governor on recommendation of CM-led committee | Committee: CM, Speaker, Home Min, LoP (Assembly & LC if exists) |
| Tenure | 3 years or 70 years (whichever earlier); Eligible for reappointment | PHRA (Amdt) 2019 |
| Removal | By President (not Governor), same grounds as NHRC members | |
| Functions | Inquire into HR violations related to State List & Concurrent List subjects; other functions similar to NHRC. | PHRA, 1993; No inquiry if NHRC already investigating |
| Powers | Powers of a Civil Court; Can recommend compensation, prosecution. | Recommendations are ADVISORY, NOT binding |
| Limitations | Jurisdiction; overlap with NHRC; 1-year limit; resource constraints; political influence. | Less effective due to these limitations |
Analytical Deep Dive: SHRC Challenges & Role
SHRCs are crucial for bringing human rights protection closer to the people at the state level, where most human rights violations occur. They are better placed to investigate local grievances, understand regional contexts, and address specific human rights challenges within a state's jurisdiction. This decentralized approach enhances access to justice for victims and contributes to broader human rights awareness.
While the removal process by the President offers some insulation from state executive influence, the appointment by the Governor (on a Chief Minister-led committee's advice) can lead to perceptions of political influence, potentially impacting the SHRC's impartiality. This tension between formal independence and practical executive control is a persistent challenge.
- Resource Constraints: SHRCs frequently face severe financial, human, and infrastructural limitations.
- Non-binding Recommendations: Advisory nature means implementation depends on political will.
- Lack of Enforcement Power: Cannot directly enforce recommendations or punish perpetrators.
- Jurisdictional Overlap: Prohibition on inquiring into matters already being inquired by NHRC.
- Lack of Awareness: Public awareness often remains low, limiting accessibility.
- Staffing Issues: Dependence on deputation affects autonomy and professionalism.
The 2019 amendment allowing a retired High Court Judge to be Chairperson aims to broaden the pool of candidates. However, reducing the tenure from 5 to 3 years has been criticized for potentially undermining the independence and continuity of members.
SHRCs are vital for addressing issues unique to specific states, such as police atrocities, custodial violence, rights of migrant workers, environmental degradation, and atrocities against vulnerable sections (SCs, STs, OBCs, women, children) within the state's purview.
To enhance effectiveness:
- Ensuring adequate and independent funding.
- Granting more teeth to their recommendations (e.g., making them binding).
- Streamlining appointment processes for greater impartiality.
- Strengthening investigative machinery and outreach.
- Increased public awareness campaigns.
Current Affairs & Developments
SHRC Interventions in State-Specific Cases
SHRCs continue to take suo motu cognizance or receive complaints related to human rights violations (e.g., alleged police excesses, custodial violence, issues in state-run institutions, public health concerns) within their states. Their inquiries and recommendations often feature in local news, highlighting their core function of "inquiring into specific complaints" and their role in state-level accountability.
(Source: Respective SHRC websites, local news reports)
Annual Reports of SHRCs
SHRCs submit their annual reports to the respective State Governments. These reports detail the human rights situation in the state and the Commission's activities and recommendations. The presentation of these reports in State Legislatures ensures a degree of oversight and discussion on human rights issues at the state level.
(Source: State Assembly proceedings, SHRC annual reports)
Challenges of Vacancies and Resources
Reports from various states often highlight the persistent challenges faced by SHRCs regarding vacancies in their membership and staff, as well as inadequate funding and infrastructure. These issues continue to impact their efficiency and capacity to address the large number of complaints, linking to "Working and Limitations".
(Source: News reports, civil society observations)
Training and Awareness Programs
SHRCs actively engage in training programs for police, prison officials, and other state functionaries, and conduct awareness campaigns for the public on human rights issues relevant to their states. This relates to their function of "spreading HR literacy and awareness."
(Source: SHRC websites)
Test Your Knowledge: UPSC Questions
Prelims MCQs
Question:
Consider the following statements:
- The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a statutory body.
- The Chairperson of the NHRC is a retired Chief Justice of India or a retired Judge of the Supreme Court.
- The NHRC has the power to inquire into matters after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting human rights violation is alleged to have been committed.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a)
Hint: This question is on NHRC, but the structure, tenure, and powers (including limitations) are very similar to SHRCs. Statement 3 is incorrect for NHRC, and same for SHRC.
Original MCQs
Question:
Consider the following statements regarding the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC):
- The Chairperson of an SHRC must be a retired Chief Justice of a High Court.
- The Chairperson and members of an SHRC are appointed by the Governor, but they can only be removed by the President.
- An SHRC is empowered to inquire into human rights violations related to subjects in the State List and Union List.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (b)
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is incorrect. As per the 2019 amendment, the Chairperson can be a retired Chief Justice of a High Court OR a retired Judge of a High Court.
- Statement 2 is correct. The Governor appoints, but the President removes, ensuring a degree of independence from the state executive.
- Statement 3 is incorrect. An SHRC can inquire into human rights violations related to subjects in the State List and Concurrent List, not the Union List.
Question:
Which of the following is a direct consequence of the advisory nature of the recommendations made by a State Human Rights Commission (SHRC)?
(a) The SHRC cannot inquire into specific complaints of human rights violations.
(b) The SHRC is barred from intervening in any proceeding involving human rights violation pending before a court.
(c) The state government is not legally bound to implement the recommendations of the SHRC.
(d) The Chairperson of the SHRC cannot be a former District Judge.
Answer: (c)
Explanation:
- Statements (a) and (b) are incorrect; the SHRC can inquire into complaints and intervene in court proceedings (with court approval).
- Statement (d) is incorrect; a member of the SHRC (not the Chairperson) can be a District Judge with 7 years of experience.
- Statement (c) is correct. The advisory nature of the recommendations means the state government is not legally obligated to implement them, though it is expected to consider them.
Mains Descriptive Questions
Question:
"The State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) are crucial for decentralizing human rights protection, yet they often fall short of their potential due to inherent limitations." Critically analyze the composition and functions of SHRCs, discussing the various challenges they face in effectively safeguarding human rights at the state level. (15 marks)
Key Points for Answer:
- Introduction: Role of SHRCs in state-level HR protection.
- Composition: Chairperson (retired HC CJ or HC Judge), two members (one judge, one HR expert); appointment process.
- Functions: Inquire into State/Concurrent List violations, jail visits, awareness, recommend actions (civil court powers).
- Challenges: Non-binding recommendations, resource constraints, political influence (appointment), lack of enforcement power, 1-year time limit, awareness deficit, compliance issues.
- Conclusion: Reiterate their importance but emphasize need for greater autonomy and enforcement powers.
Question:
"The relationship between the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is designed for complementary human rights protection, yet it faces issues of jurisdictional clarity and effectiveness." Discuss the complementary roles of NHRC and SHRCs in upholding human rights in India, and analyze the challenges arising from their overlapping or distinct jurisdictions. (10 marks)
Key Points for Answer:
- Introduction: Both statutory, different levels.
- Complementary Roles: NHRC (national, Union List, policy), SHRC (state, State/Concurrent List, grassroots). Decentralization of justice.
- Challenges: Jurisdictional clarity issues (complex cases), exclusion clause (SHRC cannot inquire if NHRC involved), hierarchy of authority, resource disparity, compliance issues, absence of SHRCs in some states.
- Conclusion: Dual structure is good but requires clearer guidelines, resource parity, and reduced political interference for synergy.