When human rights violations occur at the grassroots level-in a district hospital, a village police station, or a local government office-who steps in to investigate? While the National Human Rights Commission handles cases of national importance, State Human Rights Commissions serve as crucial watchdogs at the state level, bringing justice closer to those who need it most. Established under the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993, these commissions address violations that affect ordinary citizens in their daily encounters with state machinery.
Table of Contents
Legal foundation and establishment
Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers state governments to constitute their own State Human Rights Commissions. This provision recognizes that human rights protection cannot be centralized in New Delhi alone-it must reach every corner of the country. The Act grants states the flexibility to establish these commissions based on their specific needs and resources.
The creation of SHRCs was not mandatory but voluntary. Currently, 25 states have established their own commissions, with West Bengal pioneering this effort in 1995, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Assam, and Himachal Pradesh. States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, and several others followed suit, creating a network of human rights protection across India. However, some states still operate without an SHRC, relying instead on the National Commission for addressing complaints.
Composition and appointment process
The structure of State Human Rights Commissions mirrors that of the National Commission but operates within state jurisdiction. Each SHRC consists of a Chairperson and two members, ensuring focused yet effective oversight. The Chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, bringing judicial experience to the role. The other members include either a serving or retired High Court judge, or a District Judge with at least seven years of experience, along with a person possessing knowledge or practical experience in human rights matters.
The appointment process involves careful deliberation to ensure independence and credibility. The Governor appoints the Chairperson and members based on recommendations from a committee that includes the Chief Minister, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the State Home Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly. This multi-stakeholder approach aims to prevent political bias and ensure that appointees command respect across party lines.
Following the 2019 amendment to the Act, the tenure of SHRC members was reduced from five years to three years, though they can be reappointed. Members hold office until they reach 70 years of age, whichever comes earlier. Importantly, while the Governor appoints these officials, only the President of India has the power to remove them, providing an additional layer of security and independence from state-level political interference.
Powers and functions
State Human Rights Commissions wield significant investigative and recommendatory powers within their jurisdiction. They can inquire into complaints of human rights violations either on their own motion or after receiving petitions from victims or their representatives. The commissions possess all the powers of a civil court, including the ability to summon witnesses, demand evidence, and requisition public records.
The scope of SHRC jurisdiction is clearly defined. These commissions can only investigate matters related to subjects mentioned in the State List and the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This means they address violations within their state’s administrative control, such as issues related to police conduct, public health, sanitation, prison conditions, and violations involving state government departments.
SHRCs can intervene in court proceedings involving human rights violations, though such intervention requires prior court approval. They regularly visit jails and detention centers under state control to examine living conditions and treatment of inmates. Based on these visits and investigations, the commissions make recommendations to state governments for improving human rights protection and compliance.
Work areas and impact
State Human Rights Commissions address a wide range of violations that directly affect vulnerable populations. Their work encompasses cases related to custodial deaths, police brutality, denial of healthcare in government facilities, violations of rights of persons with disabilities, child marriage, forced labor, and discrimination based on caste, religion, or gender. For instance, the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission awarded compensation totaling Rs. 75 lakhs to 15 members of the Irula tribe who were harassed by police, demonstrating how these bodies can provide tangible relief to marginalized communities.
The commissions also conduct awareness programs to educate people about their rights and available legal remedies. They organize seminars, publish materials, and engage with civil society organizations to promote human rights culture at the grassroots level. This educational role is as important as their investigative function, as it empowers citizens to recognize and report violations.
Limitations and jurisdictional boundaries
Despite their important role, State Human Rights Commissions operate under significant constraints. Most critically, SHRCs cannot call for information from the national government, which means they are implicitly denied the power to investigate armed forces under national control. This limitation mirrors the restriction placed on the National Human Rights Commission regarding armed forces, creating a significant gap in accountability for violations committed by military and paramilitary personnel.
SHRCs also cannot investigate matters that are already being examined by the National Human Rights Commission or another statutory commission. They must complete their inquiries within one year of the alleged violation, and cases older than this timeframe fall outside their jurisdiction. Like the NHRC, state commissions lack enforcement powers-their recommendations are advisory, not binding. Governments must respond to these recommendations within a specified time, but actual implementation depends on political will and administrative follow-through.
Reporting and accountability
Transparency and public accountability form essential aspects of SHRC functioning. Each State Human Rights Commission submits annual reports to the state government, which must then present these reports before the state legislature. Along with the report, the government must table an action-taken memorandum explaining what steps were taken on the commission’s recommendations and reasons for non-acceptance, if any.
The commissions can also submit special reports on urgent matters that require immediate attention. This reporting mechanism serves multiple purposes. It informs legislators and the public about the human rights situation in the state, creates a public record of violations and government responses, and generates political pressure for action on serious cases. The annual reports often highlight systemic issues that require policy changes rather than just individual remedies.
Coordination with the national commission
While SHRCs operate independently within their states, they maintain coordination with the National Human Rights Commission. The NHRC can transfer complaints to relevant state commissions when matters fall under state jurisdiction. This ensures that cases reach the most appropriate forum for investigation and resolution. State commissions also participate in national-level consultations and training programs organized by the NHRC, facilitating knowledge exchange and capacity building.
Challenges and the path forward
State Human Rights Commissions face several operational challenges. Many function with vacancies in member positions, limiting their capacity to handle the growing number of complaints. Resource constraints affect their ability to conduct thorough investigations, particularly in remote areas. The lack of enforcement power means that even well-documented cases with clear recommendations may not result in action if the state government chooses to ignore them.
The prohibition on investigating armed forces remains a contentious issue, especially in states affected by insurgency or where security forces have a significant presence. Critics argue that this creates impunity and denies justice to victims of alleged excesses by armed forces. The reliance on government investigators to probe complaints against government officials also raises questions about the independence and thoroughness of inquiries.
To strengthen these institutions, experts suggest several reforms. Granting SHRCs greater financial autonomy would reduce dependence on state governments. Expanding their investigative authority, providing dedicated investigative staff, and ensuring all member positions are filled promptly would enhance their effectiveness. Mandatory implementation of recommendations within specified timelines, backed by legislative oversight, could transform advisory powers into meaningful accountability.
What do you think? Should State Human Rights Commissions be given the power to investigate complaints against armed forces operating within their states? How can we ensure that government recommendations from these commissions translate into real changes that protect citizens’ rights at the grassroots level?
References
- https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/15709
- https://nhrc.nic.in/about-us/state-commission
- https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/protection-of-human-rights-act-1993/
- https://www.studyiq.com/articles/state-human-rights-commission/
- https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/national-human-rights-commission/
Leave a Reply