State Human Rights Commissions (SHRC)

Why in News? Recent governance assessments flagged vacancies, weak enforcement, and poor compliance with SHRC recommendations, raising concerns about their effectiveness.

The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) is a statutory body, not a constitutional one.

It is established and governed by the provisions of a specific parliamentary act: the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHR Act), 1993.

Composition (Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993):

• Chairperson: Former Chief Justice/Judge of High Court
• Members:
  • One serving/retired HC judge or District Judge
  • One human rights expert
• Appointed by: Governor
• Tenure: 3 years or up to 70 years

Powers & Functions:

• Inquire into human rights violations by state public servants
• Visit jails/detention centres
• Review constitutional/legal safeguards
• Recommend compensation, prosecution, reforms
• Promote human rights literacy

Limitations / Challenges

• Recommendatory powers only
• Vacancies in chairperson/members
• Low financial autonomy
• Poor compliance by state agencies
• Limited jurisdiction over armed forces
• Backlog of cases

Way Forward :

Strengthen Powers

• Give binding effect to SHRC recommendations (2nd ARC: “Right to Information and Human Rights”).
• Allow suo motu powers with enforcement teeth.

Improve Appointments & Capacity

• Transparent selection process (NHRC Guidelines).
• Fill vacancies within 3 months (SC directive in Paramvir Singh Saini case).
• Dedicated investigation staff (Justice J.S. Verma Committee).

Enhance Autonomy

• Independent budget line (2nd ARC).
• Reduce dependence on state home departments.

Improve Compliance Mechanisms

• Mandatory Action Taken Reports within 1–3 months.
• Annual performance audits.

Conclusion

SHRCs are vital for grassroots human rights protection, but without autonomy, capacity, and enforceability, they risk becoming symbolic bodies. Strengthening them is essential for deepening constitutionalism and democratic accountability.