State Human Rights Commissions in India: Structure, Functions, and Role of Human Rights Courts

State Human Rights Commissions in India: Structure, Functions, and the Role of Human Rights Courts

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, from birth until death. They include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. In a democratic society, the protection and promotion of these inherent rights are paramount. India, being the world's largest democracy with a diverse population, recognizes the critical need for robust institutional mechanisms to safeguard human rights at all levels of governance. While the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) operates at the national level, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA) also provides for the establishment of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) to address human rights concerns more effectively within the states. This comprehensive note explores the structure, functions, and role of State Human Rights Commissions and the associated Human Rights Courts in India.

1. Introduction: The Need for State-Level Human Rights Protection

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948, serves as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations. India, as a signatory to various international human rights covenants, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), is committed to upholding these rights. The Constitution of India itself enshrines a comprehensive Bill of Rights in Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), reflecting the nation's commitment to human dignity and freedom.

Despite constitutional guarantees and international commitments, violations of human rights can occur at various levels, often involving state actors or negligence by public servants. To provide accessible and localized redressal mechanisms, the need for state-level institutions became evident. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, was enacted with this specific purpose: to provide for the constitution of the NHRC, SHRCs, and Human Rights Courts for the better protection of human rights. SHRCs are statutory bodies, not constitutional ones, established by state governments through official notifications.

2. Historical Background and Legal Framework: The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

The enactment of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, was a significant step towards strengthening the human rights framework in India. It was partly influenced by the "Paris Principles," which set out international standards for the establishment and functioning of national human rights institutions. The Act defines "human rights" as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.

The PHRA, 1993, is divided into eight chapters, with Chapter V specifically dealing with State Human Rights Commissions (Sections 21-29) and Chapter VI addressing Human Rights Courts (Sections 30-31). This Act provides the legal basis for the constitution, powers, functions, and procedures of SHRCs and the establishment and role of Human Rights Courts.

3. Structure of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs)

Section 21 of the PHRA, 1993, empowers the State Government to constitute a body known as the State Human Rights Commission.

3.1. Composition

An SHRC is a multi-member body consisting of a Chairperson and two Members.

Chairperson: Must be a retired Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court.
Members:
- One Member who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court or a District Judge in the state with a minimum of seven years of experience as a District Judge.
- One Member to be appointed from among persons having knowledge of or practical experience in matters relating to human rights.

3.2. Appointment

The Chairperson and Members are appointed by the Governor of the state on the recommendations of a high-powered committee. This committee typically consists of:

The Chief Minister (as the head/chairperson)
The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
The State Home Minister
The Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly

If the state has a Legislative Council, the Chairman of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Council would also be members of the committee. A sitting Judge of a High Court or a sitting District Judge can be appointed only after consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.

3.3. Term of Office and Reappointment

The Chairperson and Members hold office for a term of three years or until they attain the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. They are eligible for reappointment. However, after their tenure, they are not eligible for further employment under a state government or the Central government.

3.4. Removal

Although appointed by the Governor, the Chairperson or any Member of an SHRC can only be removed by the President of India. The grounds and procedure for removal are the same as those for the removal of the Chairperson or Members of the NHRC. Grounds for removal include proved misbehavior or incapacity, insolvency, engaging in paid employment outside the duties of office, being unfit to continue due to infirmity of mind or body, or being convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offense involving moral turpitude.

3.5. Administrative Machinery

Each SHRC has a Secretary who acts as the Chief Executive Officer. The Secretary exercises administrative and financial powers, subject to the control of the Chairperson. The Commission also has an investigation wing headed by an officer not below the rank of a Director General of Police, which is responsible for inquiring into complaints of human rights violations.

3.6. Organogram of a State Human Rights Commission

graph TD
    A[Governor] --> B(Appointment Committee)
    B --> C[Chairperson]
    B --> D[Member 1]
    B --> E[Member 2]
    C --> F[Secretary & CEO]
    D --> F
    E --> F
    F --> G[Investigation Wing]
    F --> H[Administrative & Other Staff]
    G --> I[Investigators]
    H --> J[Support Staff]
    President --> K[Removal Power]
    K --> C
    K --> D
    K --> E

Explanation: This organogram illustrates the hierarchical structure of an SHRC, showing the appointment authority (Governor based on Committee recommendation), the key functionaries (Chairperson, Members, Secretary), and the administrative and investigative wings. It also highlights the unique power of the President for removal, distinct from the appointing authority.

4. Functions and Powers of State Human Rights Commissions

Section 24 of the PHRA, 1993, outlines the functions of SHRCs, which are largely analogous to those of the NHRC but limited to the state's jurisdiction. An SHRC can inquire into violations of human rights only in respect of matters relatable to the entries in List II (State List) and List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. However, it cannot inquire into any matter that is already being inquired into by the NHRC or any other statutory commission. SHRCs also cannot inquire into any incident that occurred more than one year before the date of the complaint.

Key functions and powers of SHRCs include:

Inquiry into Violations: To inquire, suo motu (on its own motion) or on a petition presented to it, into complaints of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant.
Intervention in Court Proceedings: To intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court.
Visiting Jails and Detention Centres: To visit, under intimation to the State Government, any jail or other institution under the control of the State Government where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation, or protection, to study the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations thereon.
Review of Safeguards: To review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation.
Study of Treaties and Instruments: To study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation.
Promoting Human Rights Literacy: To promote human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars, and other available means.
Encouraging NGO Efforts: To encourage the efforts of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and institutions working in the field of human rights.
Research: To undertake and promote research in the field of human rights.
Other Functions: To perform any other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.

4.1. Powers of a Civil Court

While inquiring into complaints, the SHRC has all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These include powers relating to:

Summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath.
Discovery and production of any document.
Receiving evidence on affidavits.
Requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office.
Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.
Any other matter which may be prescribed.

4.2. Investigative Powers

The Commission has its own investigation staff, headed by a senior police officer. It can also utilize the services of any officer or investigation agency of the Central Government or State Government with their concurrence.

4.3. Recommendations

After the inquiry, the SHRC may take several steps, including:

Recommending to the concerned Government or authority the initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person.
Recommending to the concerned Government or authority the grant of immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family.
Recommending to the concerned Government or authority the payment of compensation or damages to the victim or the members of his family.
Approaching the Supreme Court or the High Court for necessary directions, orders, or writs.

It is important to note that the recommendations of the SHRC are generally advisory in nature and not legally binding on the government or authority. This is often cited as a major limitation of the Commission's power.

4.4. Complaint Handling Process Flowchart

graph TD
    A[Receive Complaint] --> B{Is it within Jurisdiction?}
    B -- Yes --> C{Is it older than 1 year?}
    C -- No --> D[Preliminary Scrutiny]
    D --> E{Does it require Inquiry?}
    E -- Yes --> F[Order Inquiry]
    F --> G[Investigation by Inquiry Wing]
    G --> H[Submission of Inquiry Report]
    H --> I[Consideration by Commission]
    I --> J{Violation Found?}
    J -- Yes --> K[Recommendations to Govt/Authority]
    K --> L{Follow-up on Recommendations}
    J -- No --> M[Close Complaint]
    E -- No --> M[Close Complaint]
    C -- Yes --> M[Close Complaint]
    B -- No --> M[Close Complaint]
    M --> N[Inform Complainant]
    L --> N

Explanation: This flowchart outlines the typical steps an SHRC follows when handling a complaint, from initial receipt and scrutiny to inquiry, investigation, consideration of findings, and making recommendations or closing the complaint.

5. Human Rights Courts

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, also provides for the establishment of Human Rights Courts at the district level for the speedy trial of offenses arising out of the violation of human rights.

5.1. Establishment

Section 30 of the PHRA, 1993, mandates that the State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court.

5.2. Purpose

The primary purpose of Human Rights Courts is to ensure the speedy trial of offenses related to human rights violations, providing a dedicated judicial forum for such cases.

5.3. Special Public Prosecutors

For every Human Rights Court, the State Government shall, by notification, specify a Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years, as a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting cases in that Court. The role of the Special Public Prosecutor is to efficiently prosecute cases related to human rights violations.

5.4. Role and Functioning

Human Rights Courts function as Sessions Courts but handle matters specifically designated as offenses arising from human rights violations. They are crucial for providing judicial redressal and holding perpetrators accountable, particularly in cases where the SHRC's recommendations may not lead to direct prosecution. While the SHRC is an investigative and recommendatory body, the Human Rights Court is a judicial body with the power to try offenses and pronounce judgments.

6. Relationship between NHRC and SHRCs

The NHRC and SHRCs are parallel institutions operating at the national and state levels, respectively, established under the same parent Act (PHRA, 1993).

Jurisdiction: The NHRC has jurisdiction over human rights violations concerning subjects in the Union List and Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule. SHRCs have jurisdiction over subjects in the State List and Concurrent List.
Hierarchy: There is no formal hierarchical relationship where SHRCs are subordinate to the NHRC. They operate independently within their defined jurisdictions. However, if the NHRC is already inquiring into a matter, the SHRC cannot inquire into the same matter.
Coordination: While the Act doesn't explicitly mandate strict coordination, the nature of their work necessitates informal cooperation and exchange of information to avoid duplication and ensure effective human rights protection across the country.

6.1. Relationship Diagram

graph TD
    A[Parliament] --> B[Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993]
    B --> C[National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)]
    B --> D[State Government]
    D --> E[State Human Rights Commission (SHRC)]
    D --> F[Human Rights Courts (District Level)]
    C --> G[Inquiry, Recommendations (National/Union List)]
    E --> H[Inquiry, Recommendations (State/Concurrent List)]
    H --> I[Refers cases for trial/action]
    F --> J[Trial of Human Rights Offenses]
    G --> K[May refer matters to relevant authorities]
    E -- Cannot inquire if NHRC is inquiring --> C

Explanation: This diagram shows the origin of the institutions from the PHRA, their respective levels of operation (National/State), and the relationship between SHRCs and Human Rights Courts. It also depicts the jurisdictional overlap and the constraint where an SHRC cannot inquire into a matter being handled by the NHRC.

7. Challenges and Limitations

Despite their crucial role, SHRCs face several challenges that impact their effectiveness:

Advisory Nature of Recommendations: As mentioned earlier, the recommendations made by SHRCs are not legally binding, which can lead to a lack of compliance by government authorities.
Limited Enforcement Powers: SHRCs lack the power to enforce their decisions or recommendations directly.
Resource Constraints: Many SHRCs face limitations in terms of funding, adequate staff (including investigative personnel), and infrastructure, which hinders their ability to handle the volume of complaints efficiently.
Lack of Autonomous Investigation Machinery: While they have an investigation wing, its effectiveness can be limited, and they often rely on existing government machinery, which may sometimes be the subject of the complaint.
Limitations Regarding Armed Forces: SHRCs, like the NHRC, have limited jurisdiction and powers when it comes to dealing with complaints against members of the armed forces. They can only seek a report from the Central Government and make recommendations.
Awareness Issues: Lack of public awareness about the existence, role, and functions of SHRCs can result in underreporting of human rights violations.
Political Interference: Like other statutory bodies, SHRCs can sometimes face political pressure or interference, which may compromise their independence and impartiality.
Delay in Filling Vacancies: Delays in the appointment of the Chairperson and Members can leave commissions non-functional or understaffed for extended periods.
Backlog of Cases: Due to resource constraints and increasing caseloads, many SHRCs face a significant backlog of cases, leading to delays in justice.
Jurisdictional Clarity: While the Act specifies jurisdiction, issues can sometimes arise, especially concerning matters in the Concurrent List or actions involving both state and central authorities.

8. Landmark Judgments and Case Laws

Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, have played a vital role in interpreting the PHRA, 1993, and clarifying the powers and limitations of SHRCs. While specific landmark judgments solely focused on SHRCs might be less numerous compared to those on fundamental rights or the NHRC, several cases have touched upon their role and recommendations.

Significance of SHRC Recommendations: Courts have, in various instances, emphasized that while SHRC recommendations are not strictly binding orders, they are made by high-powered bodies consisting of judicial and expert members after due inquiry, and thus carry significant weight and should be given due consideration by the government and authorities. Arbitrary rejection of recommendations can be subject to judicial review. (Referencing specific case names might require a more in-depth legal database search, but the principle of according weight to expert/quasi-judicial body recommendations is well-established in Indian jurisprudence). Cases often found on platforms like Indian Kanoon related to SHRCs deal with challenges to SHRC orders or the implementation of their recommendations.
Scope of Inquiry: Courts have clarified the scope of the SHRC's inquiry powers, including their ability to inquire suo motu into matters.
Limitations on Jurisdiction: Judgments have reiterated the limitations placed by the Act, such as the one-year limitation period for complaints and the restrictions regarding armed forces.

Finding specific widely cited Supreme Court judgments exclusively on SHRC powers or limitations might be challenging without a dedicated legal research tool. However, the general principles governing statutory bodies and their recommendations, as well as fundamental rights jurisprudence, heavily influence the functioning and interpretation of SHRCs' roles. Cases like Rajesh Das vs Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission discuss the SHRC's fact-finding nature.

9. Conclusion: The Evolving Role and Future of SHRCs and Human Rights Courts

State Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Courts are integral components of India's human rights protection architecture. They play a crucial role in bringing the mechanism for redressal closer to the people, investigating violations at the state level, and promoting human rights awareness within their jurisdictions. Human Rights Courts provide the essential judicial arm for trying offenses arising from such violations, ensuring accountability.

However, the challenges faced by SHRCs, particularly the advisory nature of their recommendations, resource constraints, and limitations regarding enforcement and certain entities like the armed forces, need to be addressed to enhance their effectiveness. Strengthening these institutions is vital for the robust protection and promotion of human rights across all states in India. Recommendations for improvement often include granting more teeth to their recommendations, providing greater financial and administrative autonomy, augmenting their investigative capabilities, increasing public awareness, and ensuring timely appointments of the Chairperson and Members. As human rights challenges continue to evolve, so too must the institutions tasked with safeguarding them.

Interactive Q&A / Practice Exercises

Here are some questions and exercises to test your understanding of State Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Courts in India.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

Which Act provides for the establishment of State Human Rights Commissions in India? a) The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 b) The National Human Rights Commission Act, 1993 c) The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 d) The Human Rights Protection Act, 1986
The Chairperson of a State Human Rights Commission is appointed by: a) The President of India b) The Chief Minister of the State c) The Governor of the State d) The Chief Justice of the concerned High Court
The Chairperson of an SHRC must be: a) A retired Judge of the Supreme Court b) A retired Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court c) A person with at least 10 years of experience in human rights d) The State Home Minister
The term of office for the Chairperson and Members of an SHRC is: a) 5 years or until they attain the age of 65 b) 3 years or until they attain the age of 70 c) 6 years or until they attain the age of 65 d) 5 years or until they attain the age of 70
Who has the power to remove the Chairperson or a Member of a State Human Rights Commission? a) The Governor of the State b) The Chief Minister of the State c) The President of India d) The Chief Justice of the concerned High Court
State Human Rights Commissions can inquire into human rights violations concerning subjects mentioned in which lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution? a) Union List only b) State List and Concurrent List c) Union List and State List d) Concurrent List only
Human Rights Courts are established at the district level for the speedy trial of offenses related to human rights violations, as per which section of the PHRA, 1993? a) Section 21 b) Section 29 c) Section 30 d) Section 31
For every Human Rights Court, the State Government appoints a Special Public Prosecutor who must have been in practice as an advocate for not less than: a) 5 years b) 7 years c) 10 years d) 15 years
Which of the following is a major limitation of the powers of a State Human Rights Commission? a) They cannot inquire into matters more than one year old. b) They do not have investigative powers. c) Their recommendations are legally binding on the government. d) They cannot visit jails or detention centres.
State Human Rights Commissions are: a) Constitutional bodies b) Statutory bodies c) Executive bodies d) Advisory bodies only

Scenario-Based Question

A citizen files a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission of State X, alleging that the state police tortured her brother while he was in custody two months ago. The SHRC registers the complaint and begins a preliminary inquiry.

Based on the scenario and your knowledge, what are the next likely steps the SHRC might take?
If the SHRC finds evidence of torture during its inquiry, what kind of recommendations can it make to the State Government or concerned authorities?
If the State Government does not act on the SHRC's recommendations, what recourse does the SHRC or the victim have?
Could this case potentially be tried in a Human Rights Court? Explain why or why not.

Match the Following

Match the section of the PHRA, 1993 with the relevant provision:

Section of PHRA, 1993	Provision
Section 21	Establishment of Human Rights Courts
Section 30	Constitution of SHRCs
Section 31	Functions of SHRCs
Section 24	Special Public Prosecutor

Diagram-Based Question

Refer to the "Relationship Diagram" provided in the notes.

Identify the legislative basis for the creation of both the NHRC and SHRCs.
Explain the primary distinction in the jurisdiction of the NHRC and an SHRC as depicted in the diagram and explained in the notes.
How does the diagram illustrate the relationship between the SHRC and Human Rights Courts?

Answer Key and Explanations

MCQs

c) The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - This Act is the foundational law for the establishment of both national and state human rights commissions and human rights courts.
c) The Governor of the State - The Governor appoints the Chairperson and Members based on the recommendation of a high-powered committee.
b) A retired Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court - This is the qualification for the Chairperson as per the PHRA, 1993.
b) 3 years or until they attain the age of 70 - This is the specified term limit and age criteria.
c) The President of India - While appointed by the Governor, removal is a power vested with the President.
b) State List and Concurrent List - SHRCs can inquire into matters falling under the legislative competence of the state, as listed in the State and Concurrent Lists, provided the matter is not being inquired into by the NHRC or another commission.
c) Section 30 - This section specifically deals with the designation of Sessions Courts as Human Rights Courts.
b) 7 years - The Special Public Prosecutor appointed for a Human Rights Court must have this minimum years of practice.
a) They cannot inquire into matters more than one year old. - This is a significant limitation imposed by the Act. Their recommendations are advisory, not legally binding.
b) Statutory bodies - SHRCs are created by a specific Act of Parliament (PHRA, 1993), not directly by the Constitution, making them statutory bodies.