Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed…

(a) Structural limitations: Under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993, NHRC and SHRC findings are only recommendatory, with no contempt or enforcement powers, so state machinery can ignore them. Selection leans heavily on retired judges (the 2019 amendment widened eligibility modestly), limiting civil society and gender diversity. Dependence on governments for budgets and staff curtails autonomy; the GANHRI sub-committee deferred the NHRC's re-accreditation in 2023 and 2024. With no independent investigation cadre, commissions rely on police officers on deputation, a conflict of interest when probing state excesses. Complaints against the armed forces are largely excluded (Section 19), and matters over a year old cannot be probed (Section 36).

(b) Practical limitations: Recommendations in custodial deaths, encounters and communal violence involving senior officials are delayed or ignored. Rising pendency, slow inquiries and weak follow-up deny timely justice, so commissions rarely confront the mighty and powerful.

(c) Remedial measures:

• Make recommendations binding or enforceable through contempt powers, with a 30-day deadline for Action Taken Reports.
• Create an independent investigation and forensic wing insulated from state police.
• Strengthen suo motu action and give commissions standing in human-rights PILs.
• Ensure transparent, plural selection, extend jurisdiction over the armed forces' human-rights violations, and provide adequate independent funding.