Rajni, & Sharma, R. (2026). From Constitutional Rights to Institutional Protection: A Study of the Haryana Human Rights Commission. International Journal for Social Studies, 12(3), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijss/2026/5
Rajni1*
& Dr Rajendra Sharma2
1Research Scholar
Department of Political Science
Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Haryana, India
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9255-1947
Email ID: rajnisolankirajni@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
1Department of Political
Science
Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Haryana, India
Abstract
India’s constitutional commitment
to human dignity depends on institutions that can convert legal recognition
into accessible protection. This article examines the philosophical
foundations, statutory architecture, and oversight responsibilities of the Haryana
Human Rights Commission within India’s federal rights framework. It adopts a
qualitative documentary design combining normative analysis, doctrinal
interpretation, and a bounded institutional case study. The Constitution, the
Protection of Human Rights Act, selected judgments, international standards,
and publicly accessible institutional materials provide the evidence. The
analysis develops a rights realisation framework linking recognition, access,
inquiry, remedy, and prevention. It identifies an important asymmetry between
the Commission’s substantial powers to obtain information and its dependence on
other institutions to deliver and verify corrective action. Formal independence
consequently requires continuity of appointments, credible investigation,
inclusive access, and transparent follow-up. The Haryana case also shows why
complaint disposal cannot independently establish institutional effectiveness
and why police-recorded crime cannot serve as a denominator for commission
accessibility. The article proposes differentiated remedy tracking,
conflict-sensitive investigation, accessible district outreach, and legislative
scrutiny of implementation. It argues that state commissions should be
evaluated as institutions connecting constitutional standards with
administrative accountability, rather than through caseload alone. The findings
concern institutional design and observable documentary arrangements; they do
not establish causal effects on violations or measure complainant satisfaction.
Keywords:
human rights; Haryana Human Rights Commission; statutory oversight;
constitutionalism; institutional independence; access to remedy
1 Introduction
Human rights protection requires a
relationship between public authority and persons who can question its conduct.
Constitutional recognition establishes standards, but those standards acquire
practical meaning through procedures that enable people to report harm, obtain
credible findings, and secure corrective action. In India, this relationship
involves courts, elected legislatures, administrative departments, specialised
commissions, and civil society. Their respective responsibilities overlap
without becoming interchangeable. An institution may identify a serious
violation while lacking direct control over the department responsible for
stopping it. Understanding that institutional relationship is essential to
evaluating the protection that citizens can actually obtain.
The Haryana Human Rights
Commission (HHRC) provides a useful case through which to examine this problem.
Its official materials locate its establishment in September 2012 and record
that the reconstituted Commission began functioning on 27 November 2024 (Haryana
Human Rights Commission [HHRC], n.d.). These facts establish an institutional
history requiring attention to continuity. They do not, by themselves, explain
fluctuations in complaints or demonstrate the effects of particular
appointments. Haryana is considered here as a bounded institutional case within
the statutory system, rather than a representative sample of all Indian states.
The constitutional background is
both enabling and demanding. Fundamental Rights constrain arbitrary government,
while the Directive Principles address the social conditions necessary for
meaningful freedom. Austin (1966) interprets the Constitution through its
connected commitments to democracy, national integration, and social
transformation. Bhatia (2019) similarly directs attention to the transformation
of entrenched relations of power. These perspectives make institutional
performance relevant to constitutional analysis: rights protection concerns
whether a person can challenge domination in everyday administration, including
situations in which formal procedures exist but remain difficult to use.
International scholarship explains
why creating a human rights institution does not settle the question of
effectiveness. Institutions can facilitate the domestic application of
international standards, but their authority depends on the political and administrative
environment in which they operate (Carver, 2010; Goodman & Pegram, 2012).
Their spread across political systems also requires distinguishing
institutional adoption from actual implementation (Pegram, 2010). This
distinction is particularly useful in federal arrangements, where public
services and coercive institutions are often administered below the national
level. A national institutional perspective therefore needs a corresponding
analysis of state bodies.
This article asks three questions.
How do different philosophical understandings of rights change the standards by
which a state commission should be assessed? What opportunities and constraints
arise from the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA)? How can the Haryana
case inform an evaluation framework that distinguishes institutional activity
from rights realisation? Its central argument is that protection depends on the
connections between recognition, access, inquiry, remedy, and prevention.
Weakness at any connection can reduce the practical value of otherwise
substantial statutory powers.
The contribution is analytical
rather than a claim to discover previously unknown violations. The article
connects normative theory with specific statutory provisions and develops
observable questions for institutional assessment. It also corrects two common
measurement problems: treating all disposed complaints as successful remedies,
and comparing commission complaints directly with recorded crime totals. The
resulting framework offers a cautious basis for research and reform while
keeping empirical claims proportionate to the available evidence.
2
Research Design and Evidence
The study uses qualitative
documentary analysis comprising three connected stages. The first identifies
normative principles relevant to human rights institutions, drawing on
philosophical scholarship and international standards. The second examines the constitutional
and statutory allocation of authority, including inquiry procedures,
appointments, reporting, and remedies. The third applies these principles and
provisions to the HHRC using publicly accessible institutional materials. This
design supports interpretation of institutional arrangements and the
development of evaluation criteria. It does not estimate the Commission’s
causal impact on the incidence of violations.
The documentary corpus consists of
40 cited works selected purposively for their direct relevance. Primary legal
sources include the Constitution, the PHRA, the 2019 amendment, and judgments
addressing procedural liberty, custody, public law compensation, police
accountability, privacy, and commission recommendations. International
instruments establish the wider rights framework. Scholarship supplies
contrasting explanations of rights and institutional performance. The HHRC
website and a Haryana legislative business record provide state-specific
documentary anchors. The latter records the proposed tabling of the
Commission’s 2021–22 annual report under section 28(2), but is not treated as
evidence of the report’s substantive findings (Haryana Vidhan Sabha, 2023).
The supplied thesis was used as
background material to identify the topic, relevant debates, and possible
sources. It was not treated as independent verification of numerical claims.
Its complaint statistics, vacancy calculations, prison occupancy figures, and
bibliometric assertions are therefore not reproduced as original findings. The
underlying complaint-level records, a reproducible bibliometric export, and a
consistent longitudinal administrative dataset were not available for analysis.
This boundary avoids converting a secondary compilation into an apparently new
empirical investigation or claiming that the absence of a retrieved document
proves institutional inactivity.
Documents were examined through
five analytical categories: recognition, access, inquiry, remedy, and
prevention. For each category, the reading asked what authority exists, who
controls its exercise, what evidence would demonstrate implementation, and which
alternative explanations remain possible. Legal statements are distinguished
from normative proposals throughout. Where the legislation establishes a power,
the analysis does not assume regular exercise. Where a website provides a
public information category, the analysis does not assume that the underlying
records are complete, current, or accessible to every potential complainant.
The approach is deliberately
bounded. Website material was consulted on 22 October 2026, but no
comprehensive audit of every HHRC order was undertaken. Judicial decisions are
used for the propositions they support rather than as evidence of Haryana’s
compliance. International principles serve as evaluative standards, with
attention to their institutional scope. The analysis offers reasoned
institutional interpretation and a testable agenda for future work. Without
interviews, verified implementation records, or complainant follow-up, it cannot
rank the HHRC against other commissions or assign numerical scores to its
effectiveness.
3
Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights Protection
3.1
Moral Status and Legal Recognition
Natural rights arguments locate
fundamental entitlements beyond the discretion of political rulers. Locke’s
account of government ties legitimate authority to the protection of persons
and their rights (Locke, 1689/1988). Its relevance for contemporary oversight
lies in the idea that public power requires justification. A complainant need
not establish social prestige or political influence to question an official
act. Nevertheless, a modern analysis cannot simply transfer the social
exclusions and historical assumptions of early liberal thought into present
constitutional practice. Equal moral status must extend to people whom earlier
political orders denied equal membership.
Kant’s moral philosophy provides a
related reason to oppose humiliation and instrumental treatment: persons
possess a status that cannot be reduced to their usefulness to others (Kant,
1785/1998). For a commission, this principle extends beyond identifying bodily
injury. Degrading treatment, arbitrary control, and denial of a person’s voice
can violate dignity even where officials claim administrative convenience. This
does not mean that philosophical argument alone establishes statutory
jurisdiction. It explains why procedural respect, reasons, and opportunities to
respond matter when an institution exercises authority over an individual.
Legal positivism raises a
different question: how are rights identified and made institutionally
operative? Hart’s distinction between rules of conduct and rules governing
legal authority helps explain why moral agreement does not automatically create
a functioning remedy (Hart, 1961/2012). An institution requires valid powers,
procedures, and responsibilities. In India, the PHRA translates selected rights
commitments into a specialised statutory framework. A commission cannot
exercise unlimited jurisdiction merely because an alleged harm is morally
serious. At the same time, a legal restriction can remain normatively open to
criticism even when it is legally operative.
The useful relationship between
these perspectives is therefore one of mutual discipline. Moral reasoning
prevents statutory compliance from becoming the sole measure of justice. Legal
analysis prevents desirable reforms from being presented as powers that the
Commission already possesses. Donnelly (2013) treats universal rights as claims
grounded in equal human status while acknowledging their political and
institutional development. This combination supports an assessment that asks
both whether the law authorises action and whether its design adequately
protects people exposed to exclusion or coercion.
3.2
Substantive Freedom and Social Justice
A purely formal understanding of
equal access can overlook unequal capacities to use an institution. A person
may possess the right to complain while lacking transport, literacy, privacy,
or protection against retaliation. Sen’s capability perspective makes the
distinction between available resources and actual freedoms central to
evaluation (Sen, 1999). Applied here, the relevant question is whether people
can convert an institutional opportunity into an effective claim. A complaint
portal is a resource; the ability to use it safely and obtain a meaningful
response is the corresponding institutional capability.
Nussbaum (2011) strengthens this
concern by identifying bodily integrity, practical reason, and affiliation
among the dimensions of a dignified life. These ideas do not replace
constitutional doctrine, but they clarify why rights institutions should consider
conditions surrounding a complaint. A person living under coercive family or
workplace authority may face barriers that an apparently neutral procedure
ignores. Institutional assessment should consequently examine assistance,
confidentiality, accessibility, and the complainant’s ability to understand
decisions. The value of a remedy also depends on whether it restores meaningful
control over one’s circumstances.
Rawls’s account of justice offers
another reason to examine institutions from the position of those with weaker
social advantages (Rawls, 1999). Equal procedural rules are inadequate if their
operation systematically benefits people already able to secure representation
and administrative attention. Shue (1996) further challenges a rigid separation
between rights requiring restraint and rights requiring expenditure. Protection
against physical insecurity itself depends on organised public action. The practical
implication is that credible oversight cannot be funded or staffed as an
optional addition to an otherwise complete rights system.
Sen’s later account of justice
emphasises public reasoning and the reduction of identifiable injustice rather
than waiting for agreement on a perfectly just order (Sen, 2009). This position
supports incremental institutional reform. Better explanations for closure,
independently verified compensation, and safe access to complaints may reduce
specific injustices even before statutory restructuring occurs. Such measures
still require normative direction. Administrative speed alone cannot determine
whether an institution advances justice, since rapid rejection and rapid relief
can produce similar disposal counts while having very different consequences.
3.3
Intersectionality and the Translation of Rights
Intersectionality demonstrates why
disadvantage cannot always be understood through isolated categories. Crenshaw
(1989) shows how frameworks organised around separate forms of discrimination
can fail to recognise combined experiences. For a state commission, the
analytical lesson is to examine how caste, gender, disability, age, and
economic dependence interact in access to protection. The framework does not
establish the prevalence of particular experiences in Haryana without evidence.
It supplies questions that complaint classifications, outreach practices, and
future interviews should be able to address.
Fraser’s (2008) discussion of
redistribution, recognition, and representation helps connect material
disadvantage with the institutional terms on which grievances become visible. A
person needs more than recognition as a rights-holder if the forum cannot hear
the problem in a usable form. Merry (2006) likewise explains that human rights
standards acquire practical meaning through translation within local social and
institutional settings. Translation involves language, but also the
interpretation of injury, responsibility, and acceptable remedies. Assistance
must therefore preserve the complainant’s account rather than replacing it with
an administratively convenient category.
These perspectives support a
plural institutional ethic. A commission needs legal expertise to identify
jurisdiction and procedural obligations, social knowledge to recognise
exclusion, and communication practices that enable participation. Baxi’s (2002)
attention to suffering cautions against assessing rights primarily through the
achievements claimed by institutions themselves. The resulting standard is
demanding but concrete: a procedure should make injury intelligible, examine
responsibility fairly, and connect findings with corrective action.
Philosophical foundations matter because they determine which institutional
achievements count as protection and which forms of harm remain unseen.
4
Constitutional and International Architecture
India’s Constitution connects
enforceable freedoms with a wider project of social justice. Articles 14, 15,
17, 19, 21, 22, and 23 address equality, prohibited discrimination,
untouchability, civil freedom, life and personal liberty, arrest safeguards, and
exploitation. Articles 32 and 226 establish constitutional routes to judicial
protection. Directive Principles, including articles 38, 39A, and 46, guide
attention to welfare, legal assistance, and the interests of disadvantaged
groups (Constitution of India, 1950). These provisions perform different legal
functions. Their combined significance should not obscure the distinction
between directly enforceable rights and principles guiding state policy.
Judicial interpretation has shaped
the relationship between procedure and substantive protection. Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India (1978) rejected an isolated reading of personal liberty and
established the importance of fair, just, and reasonable procedure. D. K. Basu
v. State of West Bengal (1997) developed safeguards against custodial abuse.
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) recognised public law compensation
for a custodial death involving a fundamental rights violation. These decisions
provide standards against which administrative conduct can be evaluated. They
do not establish that every complaint received by a commission requires
compensation or that a commission possesses all the remedial powers of a
constitutional court.
Privacy also matters to
contemporary oversight. K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised
privacy as a constitutionally protected right connected with liberty and
dignity. The institutional implications extend to complaint handling.
Information about sexual violence, disability, medical treatment, or family
circumstances may be necessary for inquiry but harmful if disclosed
indiscriminately. A commission’s transparency obligations therefore require
careful differentiation between public accountability and personal exposure.
Publishing reasons and aggregate information need not mean publishing every
identifying detail contained in a case file.
National Human Rights Commission
v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) provides a further illustration of the
connection between commission intervention and constitutional judicial
protection. The case concerned protection of the life and liberty of Chakmas,
demonstrating the importance of state responsibility toward persons exposed to
threatened collective harm. Its relevance here is institutional: commission
engagement can bring a rights claim before a constitutional court. It does not
establish the HHRC’s performance or eliminate the separate statutory limits
governing state inquiries.
International instruments supply a
wider vocabulary of equal dignity and state responsibility. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights links civil, political, economic, social, and
cultural claims within a common framework (United Nations General Assembly,
1948). The two 1966 Covenants elaborate these dimensions through distinct
treaty structures (United Nations General Assembly, 1966a, 1966b). Their
domestic relevance must be explained through constitutional interpretation,
legislation, and applicable legal principles rather than an assumption that
every international provision automatically produces an identical domestic
cause of action.
The Vienna Declaration affirms the
interdependence and universality of human rights (World Conference on Human
Rights, 1993). This principle challenges an oversight practice concerned only
with exceptional police misconduct while overlooking deprivation connected with
public services or institutional care. However, broad moral concern does not
remove jurisdictional boundaries. The Commission must connect a complaint to
its statutory responsibilities, including public servant involvement or
negligence. International principles can guide interpretation and reform
without authorising an unlimited general jurisdiction over every social wrong.
The Paris Principles provide
standards concerning mandate, independence, pluralism, resources, and
institutional methods (United Nations General Assembly, 1993). They were
developed for national human rights institutions. Applying them to the HHRC
therefore constitutes an analytical adaptation, not a claim that the state
commission separately holds national-level international accreditation. Murray
(2007) shows the importance of relationships between domestic institutions and
wider human rights systems. In the present case, those standards are useful
because they identify conditions under which formally established institutions
can exercise credible public authority.
5
Statutory Design of Human Rights Oversight
5.1
Mandate and Federal Allocation
The PHRA creates a specialised
architecture for protection and promotion. Section 2(1)(d) defines human rights
by reference to life, liberty, equality, and dignity, constitutional
guarantees, the International Covenants, and enforceability by courts in India.
Section 12 includes complaint inquiry, intervention with court approval,
institutional visits, safeguard review, research, literacy, and engagement with
nongovernmental organisations. Section 29 applies specified national commission
provisions to state commissions with modifications, including omission of
section 12(f), the treaty-study function (Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993). This detail matters because the state and national mandates should not
be described as identical.
Section 21(5) connects state
commission inquiries with matters relating to the State and Concurrent Lists.
Police administration, prisons, public health, and several other fields make
this allocation relevant to everyday rights protection. A state commission
therefore operates within the governmental level responsible for many
institutions generating complaints. Proximity can facilitate communication with
departments and understanding of local administration. It can also create
dependence on the political and bureaucratic environment under scrutiny.
Federal location is consequently a source of both practical opportunity and
institutional vulnerability.
The Act also regulates overlapping
inquiries. Section 21(5) restricts state commission inquiry where the matter is
already being inquired into by the national commission or another legally
constituted commission. Section 36 contains corresponding limitations relevant
to the statutory system. These provisions should not be reduced to a general
claim that all matters before any court are automatically excluded by the same
statutory rule. The statute expressly permits intervention in court proceedings
with approval. Careful institutional guidance must distinguish concurrent
inquiries, pending litigation, and the different kinds of assistance a
commission may lawfully provide.
5.2
Membership Independence and Continuity
Section 21 provides a state
commission with a judicial chairperson, a judicial member, and a member
possessing knowledge or practical experience in human rights. Following the
2019 amendment, a former High Court judge, as well as a former Chief Justice, can
qualify as chairperson. Section 22 places appointment with the Governor
following recommendations from a committee including the Chief Minister,
legislative Speaker, Home Minister, and opposition leader, with additional
provisions for bicameral states (Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993;
Protection of Human Rights [Amendment] Act, 2019). The arrangement combines
legal qualifications with political selection.
These arrangements cannot
independently establish either capture or independence. Judicial experience may
strengthen procedural competence, while opposition participation can widen
scrutiny. Yet a credible evaluation also asks whether vacancies are advertised,
selection criteria are clear, appointments are timely, and the membership
brings relevant social experience. The 2019 requirement that at least one
expert member of the NHRC be a woman should not be misreported as an equivalent
explicit requirement in section 21 for state commissions. Pluralism at state
level remains an important reform question requiring separate attention.
The amended section 24 provides a
three-year term, or service until the prescribed age limit, with eligibility
for reappointment. Shorter terms may permit renewal, but can also increase
appointment frequency and make continuity more demanding. Reappointment creates
an additional question about perceived dependence on future selection. These
are design risks, not findings about particular members’ behaviour. An assessment
should examine institutional safeguards and appointment records rather than
inferring individual motivations from statutory eligibility or length of
service.
5.3
Inquiry Powers and Investigative Credibility
Section 13 confers specified civil
court powers for inquiries, including summoning witnesses and requiring
documentary material. Sections 14 and 17 address investigation and the process
of obtaining reports. Together, these provisions give commissions substantial
means to assemble information. Section 16 supplies procedural protection where
a person’s conduct is being examined or reputation may be affected. Fair
hearing is part of credible oversight, since reliable findings require
opportunities to challenge adverse material rather than presuming that
institutional independence excuses procedural unfairness.
A central organisational issue
concerns the relationship between investigators and the authorities under
examination. The use of public officials may supply technical skills and access
to records. It may also generate actual or perceived conflicts where investigators
maintain professional ties with the institution accused of wrongdoing. The
appropriate inference is conditional: independence requires safeguards capable
of addressing those conflicts. It would be unsupported to assume that every
police-assisted inquiry is biased or that every specially recruited
investigator will automatically produce reliable evidence.
Credibility therefore depends on
observable practices. These include assignment rules, disclosure of relevant
connections, preservation of records, reasoned assessment of official reports,
and access to medical or technical expertise. A report denying misconduct
cannot substitute for evaluation of the underlying evidence. Equally, an
allegation cannot alone establish liability. The statutory powers are most
useful when supported by procedures that distinguish a department’s response
from an independently assessed finding. This distinction connects the legal
design of inquiry with the public legitimacy of its outcome.
5.4
Remedies Limitation and Institutional Boundaries
Section 18 provides for
recommendations concerning compensation, prosecution or other suitable action,
immediate interim relief, and approaches to the Supreme Court or a High Court.
It also provides for government comments and publication. The language creates
a distinction between commission findings and ordinary executable court
decrees. Nevertheless, describing recommendations as merely optional would
overlook judicial interpretation. In Abdul Sathar v. Principal Secretary to
Government (2021), the Madras High Court’s Full Bench treated recommendations
as binding while distinguishing that status from execution. This decision is relevant
to the debate, but it should not be presented as a Haryana-specific ruling or a
universally settled national proposition.
The institutional problem is
consequently more precise than the familiar description of a powerless
commission. Inquiry can produce authoritative findings, duties of response,
public reasons, and avenues of judicial enforcement, yet implementation may still
require action elsewhere. Compensation requires payment; disciplinary
accountability requires competent proceedings; institutional reform requires
administrative decisions and resources. Each recommendation therefore needs an
identifiable implementing authority and evidence of completion. A legally
significant finding can remain practically incomplete if follow-up records only
receipt of a departmental reply.
Section 36(2) imposes a one-year
restriction measured from the alleged violating act. This raises access
concerns where intimidation, confinement, childhood, or delayed discovery
obstructs reporting. The article does not presume a general commission power to
disregard the restriction. Reform should address the problem explicitly through
legislation, including clear rules for continuing violations and exceptional
circumstances. Otherwise, an institution may correctly apply the statute while
remaining unable to examine a serious grievance, illustrating the distinction
between lawful administration and adequate protection.
Human Rights Courts under sections
30 and 31 occupy a different position from commissions. They concern trials of
offences arising from rights violations and associated prosecutorial
arrangements. They are not automatic appeal forums for every commission
closure. Similarly, Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) addresses police
accountability structures whose functions intersect with, but do not replace,
general rights oversight. Reif’s (2000) institutional analysis supports
examining such relationships as a system of responsibility. Multiple bodies are
useful when coordination improves protection; duplication alone cannot
establish that a claimant has received an effective remedy.
6
Haryana as an Institutional Case
6.1
Establishment and Operational Visibility
The HHRC’s establishment in
September 2012 places it within the state commission model authorised by the
PHRA. Its website announcement of renewed functioning from 27 November 2024
makes continuity an appropriate subject for investigation (HHRC, n.d.). The
article does not calculate total vacancy months because the announcement alone
cannot establish every previous appointment and operational arrangement. That
restraint matters analytically: a leadership vacancy, a fully vacant
commission, reduced bench capacity, and a functioning registry are different
institutional conditions and should not be collapsed into a single measure of
inactivity.
The public website provides
categories for composition, procedures, reports, statistics, cause lists, and
suo motu cases. These headings indicate an intended structure of public
communication. They do not establish the completeness of publication. An evaluation
would need to inspect records within each category, document missing periods,
and distinguish broken access from absent records. The defensible finding here
is that public visibility requires more than an institutional homepage.
Researchers and complainants need stable, dated, searchable material that
connects statutory responsibilities with actual institutional work.
The legislative record adds a
second accountability channel. The Haryana Vidhan Sabha’s business list of 25
August 2023 includes tabling the HHRC annual report for 2021–22 under section
28(2) (Haryana Vidhan Sabha, 2023). This establishes a formal route through
which commission reporting enters representative institutions. It does not
establish the depth of subsequent debate or implementation. Effective scrutiny
requires attention to the government memorandum, reasons for nonacceptance, and
later action. The distinction is between creating an opportunity for
accountability and demonstrating that the opportunity has been used.
6.2
Accessibility and Administrative Translation
The Haryana case raises a
practical question about the relationship between jurisdiction and reach.
State-level location may reduce distance from relevant departments, but a
central office can remain difficult for rural residents, daily-wage workers,
persons with disabilities, or people facing threats. These are plausible access
barriers to investigate, not measured characteristics of the HHRC’s
complainants. A credible study would examine how grievances reach the
Commission through post, assisted submission, digital channels,
representatives, and institutional referrals, and which channels produce a usable
opportunity to be heard.
Accessibility also depends on how
officials translate a grievance into a legally recognisable claim. Consider an
illustrative complaint about repeated police refusal to provide protection
against private violence. The initial harm may originate outside government,
but public servant negligence may bring the matter within the statutory
framework. The example is conceptual, not an HHRC case finding. It shows why
guidance must explain the relationship between private harm and state
responsibility. A blanket statement that private disputes can never concern
human rights may obscure precisely the administrative omission requiring
examination.
For complainants, assistance
should extend beyond submission. Acknowledgement should explain the next stage,
requests for information should be understandable, and closure should state the
relevant reasons. Where jurisdiction is unavailable, a practical referral can
preserve access to an appropriate forum. Referral must not imply that the
receiving institution has accepted the case unless that is confirmed. This
approach treats participation as an ongoing relationship rather than a single
opportunity to upload a document. It also enables researchers to identify where
claims disappear from the institutional process.
6.3
Inquiry Remedies and Public Confidence
The statutory model gives the HHRC
potential access to evidence held by state authorities. Its effectiveness
therefore depends partly on how promptly departments respond and how critically
their responses are examined. A commission could possess strong legal powers
yet spend substantial time obtaining documents. Conversely, cooperative
administration could facilitate relief without extensive contested proceedings.
The available documentary anchors do not establish which pattern predominates
in Haryana. They identify why inquiry duration, evidence source, hearing
opportunity, and reasons for acceptance of official accounts should form part
of future assessment.
Public confidence requires more
than favourable recommendations. People need to know whether recommended action
occurred and whether further assistance is available when it did not. An
institution may report a complaint as closed after receiving an assurance,
whereas the complainant may still await compensation or protection. This
possible divergence should be tested through matched case records and
confidential complainant follow-up. Without such evidence, neither
institutional announcements nor isolated accounts can establish the overall
reliability of remedy delivery.
The resulting assessment is
deliberately limited but consequential. Haryana illustrates how a commission
can be understood through the relationship between formal authority,
organisational continuity, public information, and external implementation. It
does not supply a verified numerical verdict on effectiveness. This
interpretation avoids reproducing unsupported claims of either institutional
success or institutional failure. Its value is to identify which observations
would distinguish a functioning complaint office from an institution
demonstrably improving protection for people whose rights are at risk.
7
A Framework for Evaluating Rights Realisation
The proposed framework treats
protection as a connected process. Recognition identifies the relevant
entitlement and duty-bearer. Access concerns whether the affected person can
place the claim before a competent body. Inquiry concerns the production and
testing of evidence. Remedy concerns corrective action actually delivered.
Prevention concerns whether lessons from individual matters reduce recurring
risks. These are analytical stages rather than a mandatory sequence in every
case. An urgent protective intervention, institutional visit, or suo motu
inquiry may begin without an individual complaint.
Recognition can be assessed
through reasoned jurisdictional decisions. The relevant evidence includes how
allegations are classified, whether public servant negligence is considered,
and whether limitations are explained. Access requires information about
submission channels, assistance, disability accommodation, representation, and
district reach. Complaint numbers alone are ambiguous. An increase may indicate
improved awareness, worsening harm, easier registration, or changes in
classification. A decrease can reflect successful prevention or greater
exclusion. Interpretation therefore requires contextual evidence and stable
definitions rather than assuming a single direction of improvement.
Inquiry should be assessed through
timeliness, independence safeguards, evidence quality, and procedural fairness.
Average duration is insufficient if urgent matters wait while simple closures
dominate. Reporting should separate time awaiting a departmental response from
time under active examination. Remedy requires an even sharper distinction
between recommendation, acceptance, implementation, and verification.
Compensation paid after a long delay is different from prompt interim relief; a
disciplinary referral is different from concluded disciplinary action.
Reporting those states separately would improve both accountability and
research without prejudging the appropriate outcome of individual cases.
Prevention concerns institutional
learning. Repeated complaints involving similar conduct may justify thematic
review, training connected with identified failures, or recommendations
concerning record preservation and supervision. Visits to custodial or protective
institutions should be followed through to observable changes. However, absence
of subsequent complaints cannot alone establish prevention, since reporting may
also have become more difficult. Stronger evidence combines implementation
records, repeat inspections, independently observed conditions, and information
from affected people. This produces a demanding but realistic standard:
preventive activity should be connected to a specified risk and assessed
against an observable change.
Two methodological cautions
follow. First, disposal is an administrative event, not a uniform substantive
outcome. Inadmissibility, referral, withdrawal, closure after response, and a
finding followed by relief should be reported separately. Secondly, police-recorded
crime does not constitute the population of commission-eligible claims.
Criminal incidents, administrative omissions, repeat complaints, and
jurisdictional filters differ. Dividing complaints by crime totals therefore
cannot measure an access rate. A better approach would define an eligible group
through a dedicated survey or matched records and then examine awareness,
attempted access, admissibility, and outcomes within that group.
A practical evaluation also needs
a clear unit of analysis. A complaint, a person, a violating incident, an
inquiry, and a recommendation are different units. One incident may generate
several complaints, while a single complaint may involve several affected
people or departments. A commission could therefore appear to increase
productivity simply by changing registration or consolidation practices. Future
reporting should state how linked matters are counted and preserve those
definitions over time. Researchers should retain the original administrative
categories before constructing comparable measures, explaining every recoding
decision that changes the meaning of a published figure.
Timing requires similar care.
Relief recommended during one financial year may be implemented in another.
Comparing this year’s payments only with this year’s recommendations can
understate or overstate compliance because the two groups need not contain the
same cases. A cohort approach would follow all recommendations issued within a
defined period and record their status after specified intervals. Cases still
awaiting verification should be identified rather than treated automatically as
failures or successes. This would make delay visible without confusing an
incomplete observation window with a final refusal to comply.
Participation can also be assessed
without turning sensitive experiences into a simple satisfaction score.
Confidential follow-up could ask whether complainants understood the decision,
had an opportunity to respond to the authority’s account, faced retaliation,
and received the action recorded as implemented. Agreement with the outcome is
not identical to procedural fairness, since an unsuccessful complainant may
still receive a fair hearing. Conversely, compensation may coexist with poor
communication or continuing insecurity. These distinctions allow an evaluation
to recognise different dimensions of protection while avoiding the assumption
that one favourable response validates the entire institutional process.
8
Institutional Reform and Discussion
The framework suggests reforms
that can be undertaken at different levels. Some concern the PHRA and require
legislative change; others concern procedures and administration within
existing powers. Keeping this distinction clear prevents reform proposals from
overstating the Commission’s discretion. It also encourages practical progress.
Better reporting and follow-up need not await agreement on every statutory
amendment, while changes to jurisdiction or executable remedies require a
stronger legal foundation than an internal circular can provide.
Continuity should become an
explicit governance responsibility. Appointment processes should begin before
expected vacancies, with published eligibility requirements and a clear
timetable. Any interim arrangement must comply with the statute rather than assume
unlimited delegation. Selection should combine legal competence with relevant
social knowledge and a commitment to pluralism. Public consultation can improve
confidence without becoming a process for deciding individual complaints
through political pressure. These proposals address institutional resilience
and perceived independence; they are not findings that any particular
appointment was improper.
Investigative reform should focus
on conflict management and expertise. An inquiry concerning alleged custodial
abuse may require medical interpretation, digital evidence, and protected
witness communication as well as knowledge of police procedure. Assignment
rules should identify potential conflicts and explain recusal. Where additional
specialists are engaged, their independence and methods should also be open to
scrutiny. A dedicated cadre may be valuable, but organisational separation
alone is insufficient. Quality requires training, supervision, reasoned
findings, and a procedure for correcting factual errors.
Remedy tracking offers an
immediately useful administrative reform. Every recommendation should identify
the responsible authority, the required action, the reporting deadline, and the
evidence needed to verify completion. A public register can provide anonymised
progress categories while protecting sensitive details. Cases awaiting payment
should remain distinguishable from cases in which payment has been verified.
Where constitutional litigation is necessary, access to legal assistance
becomes part of the institutional response. The aim is to reduce the burden on
a successful complainant who otherwise must start a second process to obtain
the benefit of the first.
Access reform should combine
district outreach with assisted use of central procedures. Camp sittings, legal
services partnerships, and accessible information can be assessed through the
people reached and the assistance provided. Digital expansion should retain
practical alternatives for those without private internet access. Confidential
consultation is especially important where dependence or intimidation shapes
reporting. The Commission should periodically ask whether its procedures
require documents that vulnerable complainants cannot reasonably obtain before
inquiry. Simplification must preserve fair notice and evidentiary standards
rather than assuming that accessibility requires abandoning legal care.
Legislative oversight should
connect reports with implementation. Section 28 already provides a reporting
architecture. A stronger practice would identify repeated recommendations,
delayed responses, and reasons for nonacceptance, followed by recorded
departmental answers. Financial autonomy should likewise be understood as
predictable resources and accountable spending rather than freedom from audit.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR,
2010) treats institutional capacity and independence as related concerns. For
state bodies, adequate staffing and reliable resources are necessary to make
formal powers usable.
The broader theoretical
implication is that institutional authority is relational. Courts can clarify
rights, commissions can investigate and recommend, departments can implement,
and legislatures can demand explanations. Failure often occurs between these
functions. Sathe’s (2002) account of judicial activism reminds researchers that
courts are central but not sufficient actors in governance. A rights-based
approach adds the need to identify duty-bearers and enable participation
(OHCHR, 2006). The analytical task is therefore to examine the connections
through which an individual claim becomes a verified public response.
This interpretation also avoids an
unhelpful choice between celebrating commissions and dismissing them. A body
can provide valuable relief while retaining serious access or structural
limitations. It can also publish impressive activity without demonstrating
durable protection. Future research should combine a longitudinal order sample,
appointment and budget records, confidential interviews, and verified
implementation data. Comparative work should match commissions on workload,
staffing, and state context before drawing rankings. Such research would test
the proposed framework and establish whether particular reforms improve access,
reliability, and remedy delivery over time.
9
Conclusion
Human rights institutions give
practical form to constitutional commitments only when people can reach them,
obtain credible examination, and secure meaningful corrective action. The
Haryana case directs attention to the conditions connecting these functions.
Its significance lies in the relationship between state-level responsibility
and statutory oversight, rather than in an unsupported numerical verdict on
institutional performance. The PHRA supplies substantial inquiry and
promotional powers, while appointments, investigation, implementation, and
reporting shape how those powers become usable.
The article’s rights realisation
framework links recognition, access, inquiry, remedy, and prevention. It
distinguishes legally authorised action from demonstrated practice and
administrative closure from substantive protection. Philosophical perspectives
on dignity, capability, justice, and intersectionality explain why this
distinction matters. They also make clear that institutional independence
requires attention to social accessibility and the credibility of evidence,
alongside protection from improper executive influence.
Reform should strengthen
continuity, pluralism, conflict-sensitive investigation, verified remedies,
accessible procedures, and legislative follow-up. Statutory amendment may be
necessary for jurisdictional and enforcement changes, while several improvements
can begin through clearer administration and publication. The next research
priority is a verified account of complainants’ pathways and implementation
outcomes. Until those records are available, careful documentary analysis can
identify institutional responsibilities and plausible weaknesses, but should
not claim causal success or failure. A credible human rights institution must
be assessed through the protection it can demonstrate, with evidence that
remains open to public examination.
References
Abdul
Sathar v. Principal Secretary to Government, W.P. No. 41791 of 2006 and
connected cases (Madras High Court, Full Bench, February 5, 2021).
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155023115/
Austin,
G. (1966). The Indian Constitution:
Cornerstone of a nation. Clarendon Press.
Baxi,
U. (2002). The future of human rights.
Oxford University Press.
Bhatia,
G. (2019). The transformative
constitution: A radical biography in nine acts. HarperCollins India.
Carver,
R. (2010). A new answer to an old question: National human rights institutions
and the domestication of international law. Human
Rights Law Review, 10(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngp040
Constitution
of India. (1950). https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
Crenshaw,
K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist
politics. University of Chicago Legal
Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
D. K.
Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 (India).
Donnelly,
J. (2013). Universal human rights in
theory and practice (3rd ed.). Cornell University Press.
Fraser,
N. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining
political space in a globalizing world. Polity.
Goodman,
R., & Pegram, T. (Eds.). (2012). Human
rights, state compliance, and social change: Assessing national human rights
institutions. Cambridge University Press.
Hart,
H. L. A. (2012). The concept of law
(3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1961)
Haryana
Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Human
Rights Haryana. Retrieved October 22, 2026, from https://hhrc.gov.in/
Haryana
Vidhan Sabha. (2023, August 25). List of
business.
https://haryanaassembly.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/LOB-25.08.2023.pdf
Kant,
I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics
of morals (M. Gregor, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
(Original work published 1785)
K. S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
Locke,
J. (1988). Two treatises of government
(P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1689)
Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).
Merry,
S. E. (2006). Human rights and gender
violence: Translating international law into local justice. University of
Chicago Press.
Murray,
R. (2007). The role of national human
rights institutions at the international and regional levels: The experience of
Africa. Hart Publishing.
National
Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742
(India).
Nilabati
Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 (India).
Nussbaum,
M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The
human development approach. Harvard University Press.
Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2006). Frequently asked questions on a human
rights-based approach to development cooperation. United Nations.
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FAQen.pdf
Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2010). National human rights institutions: History,
principles, roles and responsibilities (Professional Training Series No.
4/Rev. 1). United Nations.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/PTS-4Rev1-NHRI_en.pdf
Pegram,
T. (2010). Diffusion across political systems: The global spread of national
human rights institutions. Human Rights
Quarterly, 32(3), 729–760. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2010.0005
Prakash
Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1 (India).
Protection
of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10 of 1994 (India).
https://nhrc.nic.in/assets/uploads/act_and_rules/1715229217_1fda2aa2f6f157bad896.pdf
Protection
of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, No. 19 of 2019 (India).
Rawls,
J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev.
ed.). Harvard University Press.
Reif,
L. C. (2000). Building democratic institutions: The role of national human
rights institutions in good governance and human rights protection. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 13, 1–69.
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hrj/wp-content/uploads/sites/83/2020/06/13HHRJ1-Reif.pdf
Sathe,
S. P. (2002). Judicial activism in India:
Transgressing borders and enforcing limits. Oxford University Press.
Sen,
A. (1999). Development as freedom.
Oxford University Press.
Sen,
A. (2009). The idea of justice. Allen
Lane.
Shue,
H. (1996). Basic rights: Subsistence,
affluence, and U.S. foreign policy (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
United
Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (Resolution 217 A [III]).
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
United
Nations General Assembly. (1966a). International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Resolution 2200 A [XXI]).
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
United
Nations General Assembly. (1966b). International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Resolution 2200 A [XXI]).
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights
United
Nations General Assembly. (1993). Principles
relating to the status of national institutions (The Paris Principles)
(Resolution 48/134, annex).
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/principles-relating-status-national-institutions-paris
World
Conference on Human Rights. (1993). Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action (A/CONF.157/23). United Nations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/vienna-declaration-and-programme-action
