NHRC and Rights Commissions: Powers, Term and PYQs

The correct answer is B, State Human Rights Commission. A State Human Rights Commission is created by Chapter V of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, an ordinary law of Parliament, so it is a statutory and not a constitutional body; Parliament could abolish it by amending that Act alone. Option A is wrong because the Finance Commission is set up under Article 280, which the President must act upon every fifth year. Option C is wrong because the Union Public Service Commission is created by Article 315, and the conditions of service of its members are protected by Articles 316 to 323. Option D is wrong because the Election Commission of India owes its existence to Article 324, which vests in it the superintendence, direction and control of elections. The trap in this question is that all four are called commissions; only the source of each body's authority separates them.

The correct answer is A, three years. The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 reduced the term of the Chairperson and the members of the Commission from five years to three years, or until they attain the age of seventy, whichever is earlier, and it also made them eligible for reappointment. Option C, five years, was the correct answer before the 2019 amendment and is the commonest trap in this question, because older notes still carry that figure. Options B and D, four and six years, have never been the term of this office; six years is associated with other posts such as a Rajya Sabha member's term, and four years with none of the rights commissions. Remember the pair: three years for the office, seventy as the age ceiling for the Chairperson.

The correct answer is B, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Act began life as an ordinance in September 1993, and the Commission was constituted on 12 October 1993 with Justice Ranganath Misra, a former Chief Justice of India, as its first Chairperson. Option A is wrong because there is no Human Rights Commission Act of 1991; that year is remembered only for the Paris workshop that drew up the Paris Principles. Option C is wrong because the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 is the renamed Untouchability (Offences) Act and punishes the practice of untouchability; it creates no commission. Option D is wrong because the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is the law under which the government appoints a one-off commission of inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, such as a riot or a disaster.

The correct answer is B, 12 October, the date on which the Commission was constituted in 1993. Option A, 10 December, is Human Rights Day, which marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948; students confuse the two dates constantly, so fix the pair in memory. Option C, 26 November, is Constitution Day, the day the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution in 1949. Option D, 28 September, is close to the date of the ordinance that preceded the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, but it is not the day the Commission came into being. The safe way to hold this fact is the chain: Declaration in 1948 on 10 December, Paris Principles in 1991, Act and Commission in 1993 on 12 October.

The correct answer is C, the Prime Minister. The selection committee has six members: the Prime Minister as its head, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and the Union Home Minister; the President then makes the appointment on its recommendation. Option A is wrong, though the Chief Justice of India must be consulted when a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or a sitting Chief Justice of a High Court is to be appointed. Option B is wrong because the President appoints but does not recommend; the same pattern appears in the appointment of the Lokpal and the Central Information Commissioner. Option D is wrong because the Union Home Minister is only a member of the committee, not its head.

The correct answer is B, one year. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 bars the Commission from inquiring into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting the violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. Option A, six months, is the limit students wrongly carry over from service rules and departmental appeals. Options C and D, two and three years, are longer than the statute allows; three years is the ordinary period of limitation for a civil suit under the Limitation Act, 1963, which is a different idea altogether. Pair this one-year bar with the Commission's other two limits that examiners like: its findings are only recommendations, and on the armed forces it may do no more than seek a report from the Central Government.

The correct answer is B. Section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 carves out a special procedure for the armed forces: the Commission may either not proceed with the complaint or seek a report from the Central Government, and after receiving that report it may make its recommendations; the Government must inform the Commission of the action taken within three months. Option A is wrong because the Commission's own investigation staff, which it may use in ordinary complaints, is not available to it against the armed forces. Option C is wrong because the Commission has no power to punish anyone, in the armed forces or outside; it recommends prosecution or compensation, and courts impose punishment. Option D is wrong because no provision of the Act lets the Commission reopen the proceedings of a court martial.

The correct answer is C, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, which stands on Article 338 of the Constitution; its companion bodies for Scheduled Tribes and for Backward Classes stand on Articles 338A and 338B, the last inserted by the One Hundred and Second Amendment in 2018. Option A is wrong because the National Commission for Women was set up under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990. Option B is wrong because the National Commission for Minorities was set up under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, its predecessor having been created by a government resolution in 1978. Option D is wrong because the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights was set up under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Only the three commissions for SCs, STs and Backward Classes are constitutional.

The correct answer is C, 2005, the year of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, under which the national commission began work in 2007 and the State commissions were later set up. Option A, 1992, is the year of the National Commission for Minorities Act and also of the Constitutional amendments on panchayats and municipalities, so it is a crowded year and a tempting wrong answer. Option B, 2000, is the year of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act that preceded the present 2015 law, not of the commission. Option D, 2009, is the year of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, whose implementation this very commission monitors, which is exactly why the year is offered as a distractor. The commission also monitors the POCSO Act, 2012.

The correct answer is C, 2014, when the Jain community was notified as a minority, joining Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis and taking the notified list to six communities. Option A, 1993, is the year the National Commission for Minorities was actually set up under the 1992 Act, and also the year of the National Human Rights Commission, so it attracts guesses. Option B, 2006, is the year the Ministry of Minority Affairs was created as a separate ministry, a related but different fact. Option D, 2019, is the year of the amendment to the Protection of Human Rights Act that changed the NHRC's composition and term, not of any change in the minority list. For the examination, remember the figure six and the order in which the communities were notified.

The correct answer is B, the Supreme Court. On a ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity the President must refer the matter to the Supreme Court, and the Chairperson or member can be removed only if the Court, after an inquiry held in accordance with its own procedure, reports that the ground is made out. Option A is wrong because no address by Parliament is needed; that procedure belongs to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court. Option C is wrong because the Central Vigilance Commission inquires into corruption among public servants and has no role here. Option D is wrong because the Council of Ministers cannot sit in judgement over a body meant to be independent of the executive. The same protection is given to the Chairperson of a State Human Rights Commission.

The correct answer is B, the two International Covenants of 1966, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act defines human rights as rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in these covenants and enforceable by courts in India. Option A is wrong because the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are the law of armed conflict and the treatment of the wounded, prisoners and civilians in war. Option C is wrong because the Rome Statute of 1998 created the International Criminal Court, which India has not joined. Option D is wrong because the Vienna Convention of 1961 governs diplomatic relations and immunities, a wholly different subject.