Revision summary
India has NHRC plus constitutional commissions for SC, ST and OBC and statutory commissions for women, children, minorities and disability. Overlap of inquiry and advice is real and costly for the complainant. A full merge into NHRC would threaten the distinct constitutional status of Articles 338–338B and specialised expertise. An umbrella with only internal wings still risks remoteness and single-point capture. Coordination, joint sittings and shared investigation are better than one commission for all.
Model answer
Introduction
India has a National Human Rights Commission and several national commissions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, minorities, women, children, and persons with disabilities. Overlap is real: an atrocity on a Dalit woman can sit with NCSC, NCW and NHRC at once. An umbrella merger would tidy the chart. It would also flatten mandates that the Constitution and special statutes created for a reason. The better case is coordination, not one giant commission.
Body
The problem of multiplicity
- NHRC is statutory under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as a Paris-Principles style national institution.
- NCSC (Article 338), NCST (Article 338A) and NCBC (Article 338B, after the 102nd Amendment) are constitutional bodies with reports to the President and a watchdog role on safeguards.
- NCW, NCPCR, the National Commission for Minorities, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities are statutory, each tied to a parent Act and a distinct vulnerable group.
- Overlap appears in inquiry, in visiting jails and hostels, in advising on Bills, and in competing press notes on the same incident. Staff and budgets are split; a poor complainant may be sent from door to door.
- Duplication also appears at State level, where State Human Rights Commissions and State commissions for the same groups repeat the national pattern.
The case for an umbrella Human Rights Commission
- One window is easier for the citizen: a single helpline, a single investigation cadre, and a single annual report to Parliament.
- Turf wars fall when one Chair allocates Benches by subject instead of five secretaries claiming the same file.
- International practice often has a strong national human rights institution with internal thematic commissioners, which can meet Paris Principles on independence and breadth.
- Fiscal and estate costs of separate headquarters, websites and Member posts would fall.
- A merged body could still have internal wings for caste, tribe, gender and child, which is merger of legal personality, not merger of expertise.
The case against a full merge
- Constitutional status of NCSC, NCST and NCBC is not the same as NHRC’s statutory status. Folding 338–338B into a statute-based umbrella would need a constitutional amendment and would look like a demotion of caste and tribe safeguards.
- Vulnerable sections do not experience harm as a generic “human rights” file. A child-sexual-offence procedure, a Forest Rights conflict, and a dowry death need different statutes, different visiting powers, and different civil-society counterparts.
- A mega-commission can become remote, Delhi-heavy, and slow. Small commissions, if they work, are closer to a named constituency and to the relevant ministry.
- International covenants also differ: CEDAW, CRC, ICERD, CRPD. Specialised commissions keep a clear treaty interlocutor.
- Political capture of one umbrella Chair would freeze every mandate at once; several bodies are a crude check, even if they quarrel.
The better argument
- It is not better to merge all commissions into NHRC as a single legal person.
- It is better to keep constitutional commissions and specialised statutory commissions, and to force a coordination code: common case-management, mandatory cross-reference within a fixed time, joint sittings on intersectional cases, shared investigation pools, and a small federal human-rights secretariat.
- Where two statutory bodies truly clone each other, a cluster merge (for example some women-and-child procedures) can be studied. That is not the same as one umbrella for every vulnerability.
- Second ARC and several parliamentary committees asked for synergy and for giving NHRC stronger civil-court teeth, not for erasing NCSC or NCW.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD M[Multiplicity] --> O[Overlap of inquiry] O --> U[Umbrella NHRC idea] O --> C[Coordination without merge] U --> R[Risk to Arts 338 338A 338B] C --> J[Joint sitting shared cadre]
Conclusion
Overlap and duplication are real and should be cut by procedure, shared cadres and joint benches. Merging every commission into an umbrella Human Rights Commission would mix constitutional and statutory bodies, dilute named safeguards, and risk a remote mega-office. The case against a full merge is stronger; the case for a binding coordination law is the reform that follows from the problem the question names.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
How far do you agree with the view that the focus on lack of availability of food as the main cause of hunger takes the attention away from ineffective human development policies in India? (15).
Next question in the 2018 paper (Q17). View answer →
-
Does the Constitution require separate SC and ST commissions?
After the 89th Amendment, Article 338A created a separate NCST. The text now treats SC and ST safeguards as two commissions, which a casual umbrella merge would have to amend.
-
Can NHRC already hear a caste atrocity?
Yes, as a human-rights violation. NCSC still has a specific constitutional duty on SC safeguards. Dual listing is the overlap; a referral protocol is the cure.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2022 · Q7 · GS II · 10 marks
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 remains only a legal document without intense sensitisation of government functionaries and citizens regarding disability. Comment. -
2022 · Q16 · GS II · 15 marks
Besides the welfare schemes, India needs deft management of inflation and unemployment to serve the poor and the underprivileged sections of the society. Discuss. -
2019 · Q18 · GS II · 15 marks
Performance of welfare schemes that are implemented for vulnerable sections is not so effective due to absence of their awareness and active involvement at all stages of policy process - Discuss.(15).
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2018 · GS II · 10 marks
In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?
Constitutional Bodies
Article 324 and the 1951 Act make the Election Commission responsible for a trustworthy poll, not only for a working machine. The Supreme Court required VVPAT, but sample slip-counting remains too small in the eyes of many parties. Storage, randomisation, mock poll and same-day mismatch data are the operational weak points. SVEEP and all-party technical briefings must explain the paper trail, not only turnout. A larger, statistically designed VVPAT audit is the practical way to keep EVMs without a trust crash.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2018 · GS II · 10 marks
Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine.
Indian Constitution
Article 338 makes the NCSC a constitutional watchdog, not a court that can execute reservation. Articles 15(4) and 16 bind the State; Article 15(5) expressly spares minority institutions under Article 30. T.M.A. Pai, P.A. Inamdar, Ashoka Kumar Thakur and Pramati protect that minority space. The Commission may still take discrimination complaints and advise on grants. Only a constitutional amendment, not an NCSC order, could force SC reservation into genuine religious minority institutions.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2018 · GS II · 10 marks
Under what circumstances can the Financial Emergency be proclaimed by the President of India? What consequences follow when such a declaration remains in force?
Indian Constitution
Article 360 is triggered only by a threat to the financial stability or credit of India or any part of it. Parliament must approve the proclamation within two months; it then lasts until revoked. The Union can direct States on financial propriety and reduce salaries of Union and State servants, including judges. State Money Bills and related financial Bills may be reserved for the President. The clause has never been proclaimed; ordinary fiscal law is the first line of defence.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.