UPSC Mains Answer: Multiplicity of various commissions for the vulnerable sections of the society leads to problems of overlapping jurisdiction and duplication of functionsy Is it better to merge all commissions into an umbrella Human Rights Commission? Argue your case.

Difficulty Level: Hard

Pre-requisite: Foundational knowledge of the constitutional and legislative framework governing commissions for vulnerable sections in India, including: 1. Timeline of Establishment: - 1978: First Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission).
- 1990: Na

Sub-category: Polity and Governance (Post-Independence Consolidation)

---

The protection of vulnerable sections in India has led to the establishment of multiple commissions such as the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), National Commission for Women (NCW), and National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). While these institutions were created with noble intentions to address specific vulnerabilities, their proliferation has resulted in overlapping jurisdictions, duplication of functions, and administrative inefficiencies. The question of whether consolidating them into a single umbrella Human Rights Commission (HRC) is a viable solution demands careful analysis.
Historically, these commissions were established in response to distinct socio-political movements and constitutional mandates. For instance, the NCSC and NCST were formed under Articles 338 and 338A of the Constitution to safeguard the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively. Similarly, the NCW was created in 1992 to address gender-based discrimination. Each commission operates under its own legislative framework, which ensures focused attention on specific issues. However, this specialization often leads to fragmented approaches, where inter-sectional vulnerabilities—such as those faced by Dalit women or tribal children—fall through the cracks due to bureaucratic silos.
An umbrella Human Rights Commission could streamline operations by reducing redundancy and fostering a holistic approach to human rights. It would eliminate the need for multiple administrative setups, thereby optimizing resource allocation and improving coordination. Countries like South Africa and the United Kingdom have adopted unified human rights bodies, which have demonstrated greater efficiency in addressing cross-cutting issues. Moreover, a consolidated commission could enhance accountability, as it would be easier to monitor and evaluate its performance against a broader mandate.
However, merging these commissions also poses challenges. Vulnerable groups have unique historical and socio-economic contexts that require tailored interventions. A single commission might dilute the specialized focus on these groups, leading to a one-size-fits-all approach that could undermine their specific needs. For example, the cultural and economic marginalization of tribal communities demands distinct policies that may not align with the broader human rights framework. Additionally, the political will and legislative amendments required for such a merger could face resistance from stakeholders who benefit from the existing fragmented system.
A balanced approach would be to retain the existing commissions while creating a coordinating mechanism under the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to address overlapping functions. This would preserve the specialized focus of each commission while ensuring better synergy and reducing duplication. For instance, the NHRC could serve as an apex body to harmonize policies and resolve jurisdictional conflicts. Furthermore, capacity-building and regular inter-commission consultations could enhance collaboration without compromising the autonomy of individual commissions.
In conclusion, while the idea of merging all commissions into an umbrella Human Rights Commission is appealing for its potential to improve efficiency, it must be weighed against the risk of diluting specialized protections. A hybrid model that combines the strengths of both systems—specialized commissions with a robust coordinating mechanism—offers a pragmatic solution. This approach would uphold the constitutional mandate of protecting vulnerable sections while fostering administrative coherence and accountability.