According to the National Human Rights Commission Act, 1993, who amongst the following can be its Chairman?

1. Understanding Statutory vs. Constitutional Bodies (basic)

In the study of Indian Polity, understanding how an organization is born is crucial to knowing its power and permanence. Think of it as the "DNA" of the institution. Generally, bodies are classified based on their source of authority: Constitutional, Statutory, or Executive.

Constitutional Bodies are those mentioned directly in the text of the Constitution of India. They derive their power, functions, and structure from specific Articles. Because they are part of the Constitution itself, they are considered highly stable and independent. To change their structure or abolish them, the Parliament must pass a Constitutional Amendment Bill under Article 368. Examples include the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) under Article 315 and the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) under Article 148 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 54, p.453.

Statutory Bodies, on the other hand, are created by an Act of Parliament (a statute) or a State Legislature. They are not mentioned in the original Constitution but are established to handle specific specialized tasks. Since they are created by law, the Parliament can also modify or abolish them through a simple legislative process (a regular bill). An interesting example is the Joint State Public Service Commission (JSPSC); while the UPSC is constitutional, a JSPSC is statutory because it is created by an Act of Parliament at the request of state legislatures Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 44, p.430. Similarly, some bodies like the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) started as executive resolutions but were later granted statutory status by law to give them more teeth Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 43, p.426.

Feature	Constitutional Bodies	Statutory Bodies
Source of Power	The Constitution of India (Specific Articles)	Acts of Parliament or State Legislatures
Ease of Change	Difficult (Requires Constitutional Amendment)	Relatively Easy (Requires an Ordinary Law)
Examples	Election Commission, Finance Commission	NHRC, SEBI, NGT

Finally, there are Executive Bodies (or non-constitutional, non-statutory bodies) like NITI Aayog. These are created by a simple cabinet resolution without being mentioned in the Constitution or having a specific law passed for them Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 77, p.792.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 43: Union Public Service Commission, p.426; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 44: State Public Service Commission, p.430; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 54: Advocate General of the State, p.453; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 77: World Constitutions (Appendix/Practice Questions), p.792

2. Origins of the NHRC: The PHRA, 1993 (basic)

To understand the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), we must first look at its birth certificate: the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993. Unlike the Finance Commission or the UPSC, the NHRC is not mentioned in the Constitution itself. Instead, it is a statutory body, meaning it was created by an Act of Parliament to serve as the "watchdog of human rights" in India Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 57, p.473. Its mandate is to protect rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity—whether they are guaranteed by our Constitution or found in international treaties enforceable by Indian courts.

The 1993 Act didn't just create a national body; it envisioned a multi-layered system. It provided for the establishment of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) at the state level to ensure that human rights protection reaches every corner of the country Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58, p.477. While the NHRC handles matters of national importance, SHRCs focus on violations related to subjects in the State List and Concurrent List of the Constitution.

A crucial aspect of the NHRC is who leads it. Originally, the law was very strict: only a retired Chief Justice of India (CJI) could be appointed as the Chairperson. However, to make the selection process more flexible and ensure the position doesn't remain vacant, the 2019 Amendment brought a significant change. Now, both a retired Chief Justice of India and a retired Judge of the Supreme Court are eligible to lead the commission Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58, p.479.

Feature	Pre-2019 Requirement	Post-2019 Requirement (Current)
NHRC Chairperson	Retired Chief Justice of India (CJI) only	Retired CJI OR Retired Judge of the Supreme Court
Nature of Body	Statutory	Statutory (No change)

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 57: National Human Rights Commission, p.473; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58: State Human Rights Commission, p.477, 479

3. Composition and Appointment Process of NHRC (intermediate)

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is designed as a multi-member body to ensure a balanced perspective on human rights issues. Traditionally, the Chairperson was required to be a retired Chief Justice of India. However, following the 2019 Amendment to the Protection of Human Rights Act, the eligibility was widened; today, the Chairperson can be either a retired Chief Justice of India or a retired Judge of the Supreme Court Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 57, p. 473.

Apart from the Chairperson, the Commission consists of five full-time members and several ex-officio members. The full-time members include one person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court, one who is or has been a Chief Justice of a High Court, and three members (of whom at least one must be a woman) with practical experience or knowledge in human rights. Additionally, the Chairpersons of various National Commissions (for SCs, STs, Women, Minorities, BCs, and Child Rights) and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities serve as ex-officio members, ensuring the NHRC represents diverse vulnerable sections of society Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58, p. 479.

The appointment process is a masterclass in checks and balances. While the President formally appoints the Chairperson and members, they do so only upon the recommendation of a powerful six-member selection committee. This ensures that the executive does not have unilateral control over the watchdog's composition.

Selection Committee Member	Role in the Committee
Prime Minister	Chairperson
Speaker of the Lok Sabha	Member
Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha	Member
Leader of Opposition (Lok Sabha)	Member
Leader of Opposition (Rajya Sabha)	Member
Union Home Minister	Member

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 57: National Human Rights Commission, p.473; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58: State Human Rights Commission, p.479

4. Functions, Powers, and Limitations of NHRC (intermediate)

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) serves as the watchdog of human rights in India. Its primary function is to inquire into violations of human rights or negligence in the prevention of such violations by a public servant. Interestingly, the NHRC doesn't just wait for complaints; it can act suo motu (on its own initiative) or based on a petition filed by a victim or any person on their behalf Democratic Politics-I, NCERT Class IX, DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, p.86. Beyond inquiries, the Commission intervenes in court proceedings involving human rights allegations, visits jails to ensure the dignity of prisoners, and promotes human rights literacy across society. To perform these duties effectively, the NHRC is granted the powers of a Civil Court during its inquiries. This means it can summon witnesses, discover and produce documents, and receive evidence on affidavits Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 57, p.475. However, there is a distinct procedural ease for citizens: there is no fee or complex formal procedure to approach the Commission—a simple letter can set the process in motion Democratic Politics-I, NCERT Class IX, DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, p.86. Despite these powers, the NHRC faces significant limitations that often lead critics to call it a "toothless tiger." Its most defining constraint is that its recommendations are not binding on the government; it can merely recommend that the government or authority initiate proceedings for prosecution or grant relief to the victim Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, p.42. Additionally, the Commission cannot investigate any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act complained of was committed. Its powers regarding violations by members of the Armed Forces are also restricted, where it can only seek a report from the Central Government and make recommendations based on that report.

Sources: Democratic Politics-I, NCERT Class IX, DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, p.86; Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, p.42; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, National Human Rights Commission, p.475

5. State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) (intermediate)

While the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) operates at the central level, the Protection of Human Rights Act (1993) also provides for the establishment of a State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) in every state. Think of the SHRC as the state-level guardian of civil liberties, dealing specifically with human rights violations related to subjects listed in the State List (List II) and the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58, p. 477. However, to prevent overlapping, the SHRC does not investigate a case if it is already being looked into by the NHRC or any other statutory Commission.

The SHRC is a multi-member body consisting of a Chairperson and two members. The qualifications for these roles were broadened by the 2019 Amendment to ensure a wider pool of eligible candidates. Currently, the Chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice or a retired Judge of a High Court. The two members are drawn from specific backgrounds: one must be a serving or retired judge of a High Court or a District Judge with at least seven years of experience, and the other must be a person with practical knowledge or experience in human rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58, p. 479.

The appointment process mirrors the federal level but moves the authority to the State Executive. The Governor appoints the Chairperson and members, but they do so based on the recommendation of a high-level Selection Committee. This committee is chaired by the Chief Minister and includes the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the State Home Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly. In states that have a Legislative Council, the Chairman of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Council are also included in this committee Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58, p. 477.

Feature	National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)	State Human Rights Commission (SHRC)
Appointing Authority	President of India	Governor of the State
Committee Head	Prime Minister	Chief Minister
Jurisdiction	Whole of India (Union/Concurrent List)	State-specific (State/Concurrent List)

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58: State Human Rights Commission, p.477-479

6. Comparing Statutory Watchdogs: CIC and CVC (intermediate)

In our journey through the various watchdogs of the Indian democracy, we must distinguish between two heavyweights: the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). While both are statutory bodies (meaning they were created by an Act of Parliament rather than the Constitution), they serve very different masters. The CIC is the guardian of transparency, ensuring the public's right to know, while the CVC is the guardian of integrity, focusing on anti-corruption and administrative probity.

The CIC was established in 2005 under the Right to Information Act. It acts as a high-powered independent body that hears appeals from citizens who have been denied information by public authorities. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Central Information Commission, p.493. On the other hand, the CVC was originally set up in 1964 on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee and was given statutory status in 2003. Its primary role is to monitor all vigilance activity under the Central Government and advise various authorities in planning, executing, and reforming their vigilance work. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Central Vigilance Commission, p.499.

One of the most frequent areas of confusion for aspirants is their Appointment Committee. While both involve the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the third member differs. For the CVC, the third member is specifically the Union Home Minister. For the CIC, it is a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Central Vigilance Commission, p.500.

Feature	Central Information Commission (CIC)	Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Primary Act	RTI Act, 2005	CVC Act, 2003
Core Objective	Transparency & Right to Information	Integrity & Anti-Corruption
Selection Committee	PM, LoP (Lok Sabha), and a Cabinet Minister	PM, LoP (Lok Sabha), and the Home Minister
Composition	Chief IC + max 10 ICs	CVC + max 2 VCs

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 59: Central Information Commission, p.493; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 61: Central Vigilance Commission, p.499-500

7. The 2019 Amendment to the PHRA (exam-level)

To understand the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) today, we must look closely at the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019. This amendment was a landmark shift designed to make the commission more inclusive, efficient, and representative. Before this, the NHRC often faced 'leadership vacuums' because the eligibility criteria for the Chairperson were extremely narrow, and the workload was heavy for a small team of members. The 2019 changes addressed these functional bottlenecks head-on. One of the most significant changes concerns eligibility. Previously, only a retired Chief Justice of India (CJI) could head the NHRC. The 2019 Amendment widened this pool by providing that a person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is also eligible to be appointed as Chairperson Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58, p.479. Similarly, for State Human Rights Commissions (SHRC), the eligibility was expanded from just retired Chief Justices of High Courts to include retired Judges of High Courts as well. Furthermore, the number of members with 'special knowledge' of human rights was increased from two to three, with a mandatory requirement that at least one of them must be a woman Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 57, p.473. The amendment also overhauled the tenure and reappointment rules to ensure a more dynamic flow of leadership. The term of office for the Chairperson and members was reduced from five years to three years (or until the age of 70, whichever is earlier). Crucially, the amendment removed the five-year limit on reappointment, making members eligible for reappointment for another term, which helps retain experienced hands within the system. To broaden the representative character of the NHRC, the list of 'deemed members' (ex-officio) was expanded to include the Chairpersons of the National Commission for Backward Classes, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

Feature	Original 1993 Act	2019 Amendment
NHRC Chairperson	Retired Chief Justice of India only	Retired CJI OR Retired Judge of the SC
Specialized Members	2 Members	3 Members (at least 1 must be a woman)
Tenure	5 Years (Max age 70)	3 Years (Max age 70)
Reappointment	Restricted	Eligible for reappointment

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 57: National Human Rights Commission, p.473; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 58: State Human Rights Commission, p.479

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the structural framework of statutory bodies, you can see how the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 applies those principles to ensure judicial independence. The core concept here is the hierarchy of authority: for a national-level body tasked with investigating state excesses, the leadership must possess the highest possible judicial stature. This question tests your ability to distinguish between the eligibility criteria for the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) versus state-level commissions, while also checking your awareness of the status of the judge (serving vs. retired).

To arrive at the correct answer, you must apply a simple logic: a National commission requires a Supreme Court background. In the original 1993 framework, the law was very specific, reserving the Chairmanship for the highest judicial officer in the land—the retired Chief Justice of India. While the 2019 Amendment has since expanded this pool to include other retired Supreme Court judges, within the context of this traditional PYQ, Option (C) Only a retired Chief Justice of India is the definitive choice. You should look for the most senior designation when dealing with 'National' bodies as a rule of thumb in Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth.

UPSC frequently uses status traps to confuse candidates. Options (A) and (B) are incorrect because serving judges are not appointed as Chairmen; this prevents a conflict of interest where a judge might have to rule on a human rights case in court while simultaneously leading an investigation at the NHRC. Option (D) is a jurisdictional trap—a retired Chief Justice of a High Court is eligible to head a State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), but lacks the seniority required for the National level. Always remember: National equals Supreme Court, State equals High Court, and the role always requires a retired status to maintain the commission's quasi-judicial autonomy.