Filing Human Rights Complaints in India: Procedure before State, National, and United Nations Commissions

Introduction

The protection and enforcement of human rights constitute fundamental pillars of any democratic society. India’s legal framework recognizes the importance of safeguarding human dignity through multiple institutional mechanisms designed to address violations of fundamental freedoms and civil liberties. The concept of human rights encompasses those inherent entitlements related to life, liberty, equality, and dignity that are guaranteed under the Constitution of India and international covenants, enforceable through judicial and quasi-judicial forums. When violations of human rights occur, affected individuals require accessible and effective mechanisms for seeking redress. The Indian legal system provides a structured approach to addressing such violations through the filing of First Information Reports with police authorities and complaints with specialized human rights bodies. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under Section 154, establishes the framework for registering First Information Reports when cognizable offences are committed [1]. This procedural mechanism serves as the initial step in activating the criminal justice system and commencing investigations into alleged offences.

Beyond the traditional criminal justice system, India has established specialized institutional frameworks dedicated exclusively to human rights protection. These include the State Human Rights Commissions operating at the state level, the National Human Rights Commission functioning at the national level, and the international remedy available through the United Nations Human Rights mechanisms. Each of these bodies operates within distinct jurisdictional boundaries, follows specific procedural requirements, and exercises particular powers in addressing human rights violations.

This article examines the legal framework, procedural requirements, jurisdictional parameters, and practical aspects of filing complaints with the State Human Rights Commission, National Human Rights Commission, and United Nations Human Rights mechanisms. Understanding these procedures enables victims of human rights violations and public-spirited individuals to effectively utilize available remedies for protecting fundamental rights and securing justice.

Understanding First Information Report

A First Information Report represents a written document prepared by police authorities upon receiving information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. The terminology “first information” signifies that this report constitutes the initial information reaching police authorities in point of time, thereby triggering the investigative process. The legal foundation for First Information Reports is established under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates that information relating to cognizable offences must be reduced to writing and registered by police officers [1].

The significance of a First Information Report in the criminal justice system cannot be overstated. It serves multiple critical functions including establishing the initial version of events as reported by the informant, providing the foundational basis for police investigation, creating an official record of the time and circumstances of the complaint, and protecting both the informant and the accused from subsequent fabrication or embellishment of allegations. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the First Information Report is not substantive evidence but serves as a vital document for corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the informant during trial proceedings.

Any person who becomes aware of the commission of a cognizable offence possesses the legal right to report such information to police authorities. This reporting can be accomplished either orally or in writing, with police officers being obligated to reduce oral information to written form. The informant may be the victim of the offence, a witness to the commission of the offence, or any public-spirited individual who has knowledge of the criminal act. The democratic principle underlying this provision ensures that criminal justice administration does not remain dependent solely on state initiative but empowers citizens to participate in maintaining law and order.

For a First Information Report to be complete and legally valid, certain essential components must be included. These comprise the name and address of the person reporting the offence, the date, time, and location where the incident occurred, a factual description of the incident as it transpired, and the names and descriptions of persons involved in the commission of the offence. The absence of these fundamental elements may render the First Information Report defective, potentially affecting the validity of subsequent investigation and prosecution.

State Human Rights Commission: Constitutional and Statutory Framework

The State Human Rights Commission represents a statutory body established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to function as a quasi-judicial institution dedicated to preventing and redressing violations of human rights at the state level [2]. The term “human rights” as defined under the Act refers to rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of individuals as guaranteed by the Constitution of India or embodied in international covenants and enforceable by courts within India. This definition encompasses both civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights recognized under international human rights law.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, enacted by the Parliament of India, provides the statutory framework for the establishment and functioning of State Human Rights Commissions. Section 21 of the Act empowers state governments to constitute State Human Rights Commissions for better protection of human rights within their respective jurisdictions. The composition of State Commissions mirrors that of the National Commission, with members typically including retired judges, persons having knowledge of or practical experience in matters relating to human rights, and subject experts in relevant fields.

State Human Rights Commissions exercise jurisdiction over matters relating to violations of human rights by state government functionaries, state police forces, and other state-level public servants. The territorial jurisdiction of each State Commission extends to violations occurring within the geographical boundaries of the respective state. However, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over matters pertaining to violations by members of armed forces, a limitation that has been subject to criticism from human rights advocates who argue that this exclusion creates accountability gaps in addressing human rights violations by military and paramilitary personnel.

The quasi-judicial nature of State Human Rights Commissions means that while they possess powers similar to civil courts for purposes of conducting inquiries and investigations, their orders and recommendations are not directly enforceable as court decrees. Instead, the Commission makes recommendations to the state government regarding measures to be taken for providing relief to victims, prosecution of perpetrators, or policy reforms necessary to prevent future violations. The state government is required to act upon these recommendations within a specified timeframe and report compliance to the Commission.

Procedure for Filing Complaints with State Human Rights Commission

The procedural framework for filing of complaints before the State Human Rights Commissions has been designed to ensure accessibility while maintaining institutional integrity. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to all persons within the territory of India [3]. This constitutional mandate underpins the accessibility of State Human Rights Commissions to all individuals without discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, or socio-economic status. The filing of complaints with State Human Rights Commissions does not involve complex procedural requirements, thereby facilitating access to remedies for marginalized and vulnerable sections of society.

Any person who claims that human rights have been violated can file a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission. This includes the victim of the violation, legal representatives acting on behalf of victims, social organizations working in the field of human rights, or any public-spirited individual concerned about human rights issues. The provision allowing public interest complaints recognizes that victims of human rights violations may often be unable to approach the Commission due to intimidation, incarceration, lack of resources, or other impediments. Public interest litigation thus serves as a vital mechanism for ensuring that serious violations do not escape scrutiny merely because victims cannot personally petition the Commission.

Complaints can be submitted to the State Human Rights Commission through multiple modes including personal presentation at the Commission’s office, submission through registered post or speed post, or increasingly through electronic modes where available. There exists no prescribed format for complaints, although the Commission typically provides a standard complaint form on its website and at its offices. The complaint must contain sufficient particulars to enable the Commission to understand the nature of the alleged violation, identify the perpetrators, and assess whether the matter falls within its jurisdiction.

The content of a complaint should include detailed description of the human rights violation alleged to have occurred, identification of the public servants or state functionaries responsible for the violation, date and place of occurrence of the violation, names and contact details of witnesses if any, and any documentary evidence supporting the allegations. While legal representation is not mandatory for filing complaints, victims may choose to engage advocates to present their cases, particularly in complex matters involving interpretation of constitutional provisions or international human rights standards.

Upon receipt of a complaint, the State Human Rights Commission undertakes preliminary examination to determine admissibility. The Commission may reject complaints that are frivolous, vexatious, made with malicious intent, or fall outside its jurisdiction. If the complaint appears prima facie to disclose violation of human rights, the Commission issues notice to the concerned state authorities calling for reports and explanations. The Commission possesses powers to summon witnesses, examine documents, and conduct on-site investigations where necessary. After completing its inquiry, the Commission submits recommendations to the state government for implementation, specifying the relief to be granted to victims and action to be taken against erring officials.

National Human Rights Commission: Establishment and Jurisdiction

The National Human Rights Commission of India was established through the Protection of Human Rights Ordinance promulgated on September 28, 1993, which was subsequently replaced by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, enacted by Parliament and brought into force on October 12, 1993 [4]. The establishment of the National Commission marked a significant milestone in India’s commitment to protecting and promoting human rights, fulfilling international obligations under various human rights treaties and responding to domestic concerns about human rights violations by state functionaries.

The National Human Rights Commission functions as the apex body for human rights protection in India, exercising superintendence over State Human Rights Commissions and possessing jurisdiction over matters of national importance. The composition of the National Commission reflects a multi-disciplinary approach, with members drawn from the judiciary, civil society, academia, and human rights activism. The Chairperson of the Commission must be a retired Chief Justice of India, while other members include retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts, persons having knowledge of or practical experience in human rights matters, and the Chairpersons of National Commissions for Minorities, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Women.

The jurisdiction of the National Human Rights Commission extends to all matters relating to human rights violations by public servants throughout India, with certain statutory limitations. The Commission exercises suo moto powers to initiate inquiries into violations that come to its notice through media reports, fact-finding missions, or other sources. It also investigates complaints received from victims, their representatives, or public-spirited individuals concerned about human rights issues. The Commission’s mandate encompasses promotion of human rights awareness through publications, seminars, and educational programs, review of constitutional and legal safeguards for human rights protection, and recommendations for legislative, administrative, and policy reforms to strengthen human rights protection mechanisms.

However, the National Human Rights Commission operates under two significant constraints that limit its effectiveness. First, the Commission possesses recommendatory powers rather than enforcement authority. Its findings and recommendations are not legally binding, and the government or concerned authorities may choose not to implement them, though they are required to provide reasons for non-compliance. This limitation has generated debate about whether the Commission should be vested with enforcement powers similar to those possessed by courts, though such expansion would require constitutional amendments given the separation of powers doctrine.

Second, and perhaps more significantly, the Commission cannot inquire into any complaint filed after the expiration of one year from the date of the incident giving rise to the complaint. This temporal limitation has been extensively criticized by human rights activists and legal scholars who argue that many human rights violations, particularly those involving torture, enforced disappearances, or custodial deaths, may not come to light within one year due to cover-ups by perpetrators, fear of victims, or the time required to gather evidence. The one-year limitation period thus creates a significant accountability gap, potentially allowing serious violations to escape scrutiny merely due to delayed reporting.

Procedure for Filing Complaints with National Human Rights Commission

The National Human Rights Commission has developed a dual-track system for filing and receiving complaints, recognizing the diverse technological capabilities and preferences of complainants across India’s vast and varied population. The two primary modes of filing a complaint are the online platform and the offline platform, each designed to facilitate access while maintaining procedural integrity.

The online complaint mechanism operates through the official website of the National Human Rights Commission. Complainants must navigate to the complaint registration section of the website, where they can access an electronic complaint form. This form requires entry of essential information including personal details of the complainant, description of the human rights violation, identification of perpetrators, and supporting documentation in electronic format. The online system generates an acknowledgment containing a unique complaint registration number that enables complainants to track the status of their complaints. The advantages of online filing include immediacy of submission, automatic generation of acknowledgment, ability to upload supporting documents electronically, and convenience for complainants located far from the Commission’s offices.

The offline complaint mechanism requires complainants to download and print the complaint form available on the Commission’s website or obtain it from the Commission’s offices. After completing the form with all requisite details and attaching supporting documents, the complainant must submit it to the National Human Rights Commission either through personal delivery or by registered post or speed post. Personal delivery at the Commission’s office provides the advantage of immediate acknowledgment and opportunity to seek clarifications about procedural requirements. Postal submission, while less immediate, offers convenience for complainants unable to travel to the Commission’s headquarters.

Regardless of the mode of submission, all complaints to the National Human Rights Commission must satisfy certain substantive and procedural requirements. The complaint must be made by the victim of the alleged violation or by any other person on behalf of the victim. This inclusive standing requirement recognizes that victims may be incapacitated, imprisoned, or otherwise unable to file complaints personally. Complaints may be submitted in English, Hindi, or any language included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India, thereby removing language barriers that might otherwise impede access to remedies for non-English speaking populations.

The complaint must specifically allege violation of human rights or abetment of such violation or negligence in preventing such violation by a public servant. This requirement focuses the Commission’s jurisdiction on violations by state functionaries rather than private parties, reflecting the understanding that human rights obligations primarily bind the state and its agents. The complaint should identify the specific rights alleged to have been violated, describe the circumstances of the violation in sufficient detail, provide information about the perpetrators including their names, designations, and departments, and include dates, locations, and other particulars enabling investigation.

The temporal jurisdiction limitation requiring complaints to be filed within one year of the incident represents a significant procedural hurdle. The one-year period is calculated from the date of the alleged violation or the date when the violation came to the knowledge of the Commission, whichever is later. In exceptional circumstances where violations continue over extended periods or where delayed reporting is attributable to actions of perpetrators, the Commission may exercise discretion to entertain complaints filed beyond the one-year period, though such discretion is exercised sparingly and requires convincing justification.

United Nations Human Rights Mechanisms

The United Nations human rights system provides international remedies for human rights violations when domestic mechanisms have been exhausted or have proven ineffective. The current United Nations human rights architecture centers around the Human Rights Council, which replaced the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2006 through General Assembly Resolution 60/251 [5]. The Human Rights Council operates as a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly, responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights globally, addressing situations of human rights violations, and making recommendations on human rights issues.

The United Nations human rights mechanisms operate through multiple channels including the Universal Periodic Review process, Special Procedures mandate holders, Treaty Bodies monitoring implementation of core human rights treaties, and the Complaint Procedure established under Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1. The Universal Periodic Review constitutes a state-centric peer review mechanism where every United Nations member state’s human rights record undergoes examination every four years. Special Procedures mandate holders, consisting of Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups, investigate specific human rights issues or country situations and can receive individual complaints about violations.

Treaty Bodies represent committees of independent experts monitoring state compliance with core international human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Convention Against Torture, and others. India has ratified several of these treaties and accepts the competence of corresponding Treaty Bodies to receive individual communications from victims of violations, subject to exhaustion of domestic remedies.

The complaint procedure under the Human Rights Council, formerly known as the 1503 procedure, addresses consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This mechanism operates on a confidential basis and focuses on situations rather than individual cases. Communications from individuals or organizations about systematic violations undergo screening by the Working Group on Communications and the Working Group on Situations before possible consideration by the Human Rights Council.

A fundamental prerequisite for approaching United Nations human rights mechanisms is the exhaustion of all available and effective domestic remedies. This principle of international law recognizes that states have the primary responsibility for protecting human rights within their territories and that international mechanisms should intervene only when domestic systems have failed to provide adequate remedies. The exhaustion requirement necessitates that complainants first pursue all available remedies through national courts, human rights commissions, and other domestic forums before approaching international bodies.

The exhaustion of domestic remedies rule contains certain exceptions. Remedies need not be pursued if they are unavailable, ineffective, unreasonably prolonged, or unlikely to bring effective relief. For example, if a state does not provide any judicial mechanism to challenge a particular type of violation, if domestic courts have consistently ruled against similar claims making further litigation futile, or if domestic proceedings have been unreasonably delayed for many years, the exhaustion requirement may be deemed satisfied. The burden of proving that domestic remedies have been exhausted or that exceptions apply rests with the complainant.

Comparative Analysis of Complaint Mechanisms

The three tiers of filing human rights complaints mechanisms – State Human Rights Commissions, National Human Rights Commission, and United Nations mechanisms – operate at different levels with distinct jurisdictional boundaries, procedural requirements, and remedial capabilities. Understanding these distinctions enables complainants to select appropriate forums and, where necessary, pursue remedies sequentially through multiple tiers.

State Human Rights Commissions function at the state level with jurisdiction over violations by state government functionaries within their respective states. These Commissions offer advantages of geographical proximity to victims, familiarity with local languages and cultural contexts, and ability to conduct on-site investigations efficiently. However, State Commissions lack jurisdiction over central government agencies, armed forces, or violations occurring outside their territorial boundaries. Their recommendations bind only state governments and may face implementation challenges when state authorities resist compliance.

The National Human Rights Commission operates at the national level with broader jurisdiction encompassing violations throughout India by both central and state government functionaries. The National Commission possesses greater institutional resources, technical expertise, and political leverage compared to State Commissions. Its recommendations carry greater weight and receive wider publicity, potentially generating pressure for implementation. However, the National Commission faces the constraint of the one-year limitation period, which State Commissions also observe in practice though with somewhat greater flexibility in exceptional cases.

United Nations human rights mechanisms function at the international level and can address violations by any state that has ratified relevant treaties or accepted specific complaint procedures. International mechanisms offer advantages of independence from national political pressures, application of international human rights standards, and potential for generating international attention and diplomatic pressure. However, these mechanisms require exhaustion of domestic remedies, involve lengthy procedures often extending over several years, and typically result in non-binding recommendations rather than enforceable orders. The practical impact of international mechanisms depends largely on the concerned state’s willingness to cooperate and implement recommendations.

Remedies and Enforcement Mechanisms

The nature and effectiveness of remedies available through different human rights complaint mechanisms vary significantly based on their constitutional status, statutory powers, and practical enforcement capabilities. State Human Rights Commissions and the National Human Rights Commission, despite being termed quasi-judicial bodies, do not possess powers to issue enforceable orders in the manner of courts. Their primary function involves investigation of complaints, fact-finding, and making recommendations to concerned governments regarding remedial action.

When State or National Human Rights Commissions find that human rights violations have occurred, they typically recommend measures including monetary compensation to victims, disciplinary or criminal action against perpetrators, policy or legislative reforms to prevent future violations, and institutional changes to strengthen human rights protection mechanisms. These recommendations are submitted to the concerned government – state government in case of State Commission recommendations and central or state government as applicable in case of National Commission recommendations – with a requirement that the government report action taken within a specified period.

The non-binding nature of Commission recommendations has generated significant debate about their effectiveness. Governments may delay implementation, provide inadequate relief to victims, or decline to initiate action against perpetrators while offering various justifications. The Commissions possess limited enforcement mechanisms beyond generating publicity, conducting follow-up inquiries, and reporting non-compliance in their annual reports to legislatures. This limitation reflects the constitutional design whereby only courts established under the Constitution possess powers to issue enforceable judgments and orders.

However, the Supreme Court and High Courts have developed jurisprudence requiring governments to treat recommendations of Human Rights Commissions seriously and implement them unless compelling reasons exist for non-implementation. Courts have held that while recommendations are not legally binding in the strict sense, they carry significant persuasive value given the expertise and fact-finding capabilities of the Commissions. Arbitrary rejection of recommendations without adequate justification may be subject to judicial review through writ petitions filed by victims or their representatives.

United Nations human rights mechanisms similarly issue recommendations and observations rather than enforceable orders, given the absence of a supranational enforcement authority in international law. The effectiveness of international recommendations depends on factors including the state’s commitment to international human rights obligations, diplomatic pressures from other states and international organizations, domestic civil society advocacy, and media attention. While international mechanisms lack direct enforcement powers, they contribute to norm-setting, monitoring, and advocacy that can influence state behavior over time.

Conclusion

The institutional framework for addressing human rights violations in India operates through a multi-tiered system encompassing State Human Rights Commissions, the National Human Rights Commission, and international mechanisms under the United Nations human rights system. Each tier serves distinct functions with specific jurisdictional boundaries, procedural requirements, and remedial capabilities. The accessibility of these mechanisms to victims and public-spirited individuals represents a significant achievement in India’s human rights protection architecture, though challenges persist regarding enforcement of recommendations and accountability for perpetrators.

The filing of First Information Reports under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, initiates the criminal justice process for cognizable offences including those involving human rights violations. This mechanism serves as the foundational step in pursuing criminal accountability and should be utilized promptly when violations occur. Simultaneously, filing human rights complaints before the State and National Human Rights Commissions provides alternative or complementary remedies focused on victim relief, fact-finding, and systemic reforms rather than solely on criminal prosecution.

For individuals whose human rights have been violated, understanding the procedural requirements, jurisdictional limitations, and strategic considerations in filing human rights complaints is essential for effective utilization of available remedies. Legal assistance from advocates specializing in human rights law or support from civil society organizations can significantly enhance the prospects of successful complaints. Documentation of violations through photographs, medical records, witness statements, and other evidence should be undertaken promptly to preserve evidentiary value.

The international dimension of human rights protection, accessible through United Nations mechanisms after exhaustion of domestic remedies, provides an additional layer of accountability and potential for redress when domestic systems prove inadequate. While international mechanisms involve lengthy procedures and produce recommendations rather than binding orders, they contribute to long-term norm development and can generate pressures for policy reforms and institutional changes.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of human rights complaint mechanisms depends not merely on procedural accessibility but on political will for implementation of recommendations, accountability of perpetrators, and systemic reforms addressing root causes of violations. Strengthening these mechanisms requires ongoing advocacy by civil society, judicial oversight through public interest litigation, and sustained commitment by governments to uphold constitutional values and international human rights obligations.

Reference

[1] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154

[2] Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

[3] Constitution of India, Article 14

[4] National Human Rights Commission of India, available at: https://nhrc.nic.in/ 

[5] United Nations Human Rights Council

[6] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

[7] Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[8] State Human Rights Commissions in India

[9] United Nations Treaty Bodies, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies 

Download Booklet on Human Rights Laws in India – Protection & Legal Framework