UPSC Mains 2018 GS Paper 2 Q16: model answer

A Dalit woman assaulted by police can approach the NHRC, the NCW, the NCSC and their State counterparts, often at the same time. Each opens a file and each asks the same district police for a report.

The commissions

NHRC (1993) and SHRCs; NCW (1990); NCSC (Article 338), NCST (338A), NCBC (338B); NCM (1992); NCPCR (2005); the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities; NCSK for safai karamcharis.

Problems of multiplicity

• Overlapping jurisdiction: Section 3(3) of the PHRA makes chairs of other commissions deemed members of the NHRC, but rarely helps coordination.
• Duplication: multiple inquiries, inconsistent findings, police fatigue.
• Forum shopping by complainants and politicians.
• Spread-thin budgets and vacancies; several commissions were headless for long stretches.
• Citizens do not know which door to knock on, and the poorest give up after the first.

Case for merger

• One door for citizens, pooled investigators, a stronger voice against the State, and savings on duplicated staff and offices.
• The Paris Principles favour one strong national human rights institution.

Case against merger

• Specialised commissions carry constitutional status (NCSC, NCST, NCBC) that cannot be merged by statute.
• Caste, gender and child rights need dedicated expertise and attention.
• A single body might marginalise the weakest group's issues, as minority complaints are often lost even today within general police work.

My position: integrate, do not merge

• A common complaint portal with automatic routing and one lead commission.
• Joint inquiries, with one report, in cases that cross mandates.
• The NHRC as a coordinating apex, with commission chairs actually meeting as its full commission.
• Common minimum powers: binding compensation and time-bound government replies.

Merging commissions would solve paperwork but risk losing voice. Integration keeps both expertise and coherence.