Q.Multiplicity of various commissions for the vulnerable sections of the society leads to problems of overlapping jurisdiction & duplication of functions. Is it better to merge all commissions into an umbrella human rights commission? Argue your case.

Body

Arguments in Favor of Merging Commissions

• Reduction of Overlapping Jurisdictions: Multiple commissions often handle intersecting issues, leading to jurisdictional conflicts. For example, cases of discrimination against Dalit women can fall under the purview of the NHRC, NCSC, and NCW simultaneously.
  • Illustration: In 2017, the NHRC intervened in atrocities against Dalit women, an issue that also concerned the NCSC and NCW. Merging these bodies would streamline case management and eliminate such overlaps.
• Comprehensive Approach to Human Rights: An umbrella commission can address human rights issues holistically, recognizing the intersectionality of vulnerabilities like caste, gender, and religion.
  • Illustration: In 2021, the NHRC handled 32,876 cases, many of which involved multiple overlapping vulnerabilities. A unified body would provide more comprehensive redressal.
• Efficiency and Resource Optimization: Merging these bodies would reduce administrative overheads and eliminate redundant processes.
  • Illustration: The combined budget for the NCSC, NCST, NCM, and NCW in 2021-22 was approximately ₹320 crores. A unified commission could optimize these funds, redirecting resources toward legal aid, advocacy, and public awareness.
• Improved Public Access and Trust: A single, well-known institution reduces public confusion regarding where to file grievances.
  • Illustration: The NHRC's centralized complaint system could be expanded to include specialized divisions for caste, gender, and minority issues, simplifying the filing process for citizens.
• Enhanced Accountability: A unified structure establishes clear lines of responsibility and a cohesive national strategy for human rights protection.
• International Precedents: Many countries have successfully integrated diverse human rights mandates into a single body. For instance, the Australian Human Rights Commission operates under a single umbrella, ensuring a highly coordinated approach.
• Unified Data Collection and Analysis: A single body can standardize data collection, leading to more robust policy inputs.
  • Illustration: In 2020, the NHRC reported 144,000 human rights violations. A unified database would allow for better categorization and targeted policy responses.

Arguments Against Merging Commissions

• Loss of Specialized Focus: Specialized commissions possess deep, group-specific expertise that might get diluted within a massive, generalized human rights body.
  • Illustration: The NCW's dedicated focus was instrumental in drafting the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. Such targeted advocacy might lose priority in a broader commission.
• Risk of Bureaucratic Centralization: A single, massive commission could become overly bureaucratic and slower to respond.
  • Illustration: The NHRC already faces a major backlog, with over 20,000 cases pending as of March 2023. Adding more responsibilities could worsen these delays.
• Inadequate Representation of Specific Interests: Vulnerable groups may feel their unique concerns are overshadowed by broader human rights issues.
  • Illustration: The NCSC's focused work on caste-based discrimination is vital in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. A general body might dilute this focus.
• Potential for Increased Political Influence: A single, centralized commission might be more vulnerable to political influence, compromising its autonomy.
• Complexity in Transition: Merging multiple statutory and constitutional bodies with distinct legal mandates and operational procedures would present immense administrative and legal challenges.
• Potential Dilution of Focused Advocacy: Specialized advocacy, such as the NCW's push for stricter penalties for acid attacks, might lose momentum within a larger organization.