This article is written by Abinas Kaur Gill of Lovely Professional University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
ABSTRACT
This research paper provides a comparative legal analysis of District, State, and National Commissions established under Indian law, emphasizing on consumer protection, human rights, and women’s rights. These commissions are essential to the decentralized system of rights protection and justice delivery in India. The report identifies issues with these entities’ operations while assessing their authority, jurisdiction, hierarchy, and constraints. The study makes recommendations for improvements to improve its efficiency, accountability, and public trust based on actual evidence, judicial interpretations, and statutory texts.
Keywords
District Commissions, State Commissions, National Commissions, Quasi-Judicial Bodies, Decentralized Justice, Statutory Commissions, Indian Legal System.
INTRODUCTION
Commissions are statutory or quasi-judicial organizations established to uphold fundamental rights, supervise policy implementation, and administer justice. A multi-tiered structure that puts redressal processes closer to the people is necessary in India due to its large population and variety. Judicial efficiency and administrative decentralization are made possible by the three-tier system.
This system is used in a variety of fields, including women’s welfare, human rights, and consumer affairs. Human rights commissioners, for example, primarily have recommendatory jurisdiction, but some commissions, such as those under the Consumer Protection Act, have adjudicatory powers. This comparative perspective sheds light on the ways in which different commissioners operate and identifies areas in which reforms are required to guarantee effectiveness and accessibility.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF COMMISSIONS
A commission is a body established by statute or the constitution to look into, keep an eye on, or decide on particular issues within a legally specified parameters. These bodies are intended to support the roles of the executive and judicial branches while operating independently of them.[1]
Articles such as Article 323B permit Parliament to establish tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities, even though they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Seventh Schedule’s Concurrent List (List III) permits the Center and States to pass legislation pertaining to commissions on topics including social welfare and consumer protection.[2]
STRUCTURE OF DISTRICT, STATE, AND NATIONAL COMMISSIONS
The District Commission is the lowest tier in the hierarchy and was formed by the State Government to operate within a district. In general, it consists of two members and a president who is or has been a district judge. Its main responsibility is to resolve conflicts and grievances locally. The State Commission, further established up by the State Government, possesses jurisdiction over the entire state. It comprises up to four members and is led by a president who is or has been a High Court judge. The State Commission hears original complaints with a larger monetary value in addition to handling appeals from District Commissions.
The National Commission, which was established by the Central Government and has jurisdiction over all of India, is at the top. It has up to five other members and is chaired by a current or former Supreme Court justice. In addition to hearing appeals from State Commissions, the National Commission is crucial to the coordination and direction of national policy.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ACROSS DIFFERENT COMMISSIONS
Consumer Protection Commissions (Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 is a comprehensive piece of welfare legislation created to protect consumers’ rights and interests in India. It supersedes the previous Consumer Protection Act of 1986 with a more strong, technologically responsive framework that incorporates the present difficulties of e-commerce, misleading ads, and unfair trade practices.[3] According to Section 2(7) of the Act, a “consumer” is defined as any individual who purchases products or services for consideration, and this definition includes both offline and online transactions.[4] The fundamental goal of the legislation is to provide easy, quick, and cost-effective resolution for consumer disputes through a three-tier structure of adjudicatory bodies: District, State, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions.
The Act’s interpretation and scope have been further expanded by judicial declarations. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) provided clarification on the District Commission’s territorial jurisdiction in instances involving online transactions in the case of Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar.[5] The NCDRC emphasized the importance of consumer convenience in digital platform disputes. In the significant case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.[6], the NCDRC discussed the maintainability of class-action complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing that consumer forums can adjudicate disputes involving large groups of similarly placed individuals, promoting collective consumer welfare. These decisions demonstrate how the judiciary is refining the application of the law in response to changing commercial and technical realities.
Jurisdiction
- District: up to ₹50 lakh
- State: ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore
- National: above ₹2 crore
Powers
Each commission has powers of a civil court for summoning witnesses, enforcing attendance, and examining documents.⁴ They can order compensation, refund, and product replacement.
Appeals
- District to State within 45 days (Sec. 41)
- State to National within 30 days (Sec. 51)
- National to Supreme Court within 30 days (Sec. 67)[7]
Women’s Commissions
The National Commission for Women is a legislative body to safeguard women and their rights in India by the National Commission for Women Act, 1990. The Act authorizes the NCW to evaluate legal and constitutional safeguards for women, investigate particular complaints, monitor the implementation of protective legislation, and advise the government on women’s policy issues.[8] In tandem, many states have established State Commissions for Women under their individual state acts.
In National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi[9], the Delhi High Court stated that while the NCW has broad consultative powers, it cannot overrule statutory criminal investigations or interfere with ongoing legal procedures. Nonetheless, the NCW has arisen as a vital forum for women’s issues including domestic abuse, sexual harassment, workplace discrimination, and dowry killings. The Commission has also taken a proactive role in policy formation, suggesting modifications to the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act.
However, critics contend that the Commission’s limited legislative authority and reliance on executive cooperation limit its ability to ensure justice and enforcement. Despite these limitations, the NCW remains one of the most visible institutional vehicles for advancing gender equality and ensuring that the constitutional promise of equality under Article 15(3) is put into practice.
Framework
- District-level Committees: Formed administratively, no statutory powers.
- State Women Commissions: Statutory bodies under respective State Acts.
- National Commission for Women (NCW): Established under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990.
Powers
- Investigate complaints of women’s rights violations.
- Recommend amendments in law.
- Coordinate with NGOs and law enforcement.
Human Rights Commissions (Under The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993)
The Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993 (PHRA) is an important component of law that ensures the protection, promotion, and enforcement of human rights in India. According to Section 2(d) of the Act, “human rights” are the rights to equality, dignity, liberty, and life that are protected by the Constitution or found in international agreements and that Indian courts have the authority to uphold.[10] It establishes the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) at the national level, as well as State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) in each state.
These commissioners have the authority of a civil court and can investigate accusations of human rights violations, visit prisons, examine safeguards, recommend reforms, and launch awareness campaigns. However, their recommendations are advisory in nature, and their lack of binding power continues to be a significant restraint on their enforcement capability.
The Supreme Court emphasized the NHRC’s oversight role in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal[11], establishing standards for arrest and detention to prevent torture in detention. In NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh[12], the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional legality of the NHRC’s involvement in sensitive inter-state situations, holding that the Commission cannot be rendered powerless in matters involving grave abuses of rights. Despite its progressive jurisprudence, the NHRC has faced criticism for bureaucratic inefficiency, delayed investigations, and inadequate enforcement powers.
Despite its progressive jurisprudence, the NHRC has faced criticism for bureaucratic inefficiency, delayed investigations, and inadequate enforcement powers. Nonetheless, the Commission is critical in terms of policy advocacy, structural reform, and ensuring that administrative governance adheres to constitutional principles.
Composition
- District Human Rights Cell: Not statutory but often created for support.
- State Human Rights Commission: Chairperson (retired Chief Justice) + Members
- National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): Chairperson (retired SC Chief Justice) + Members
Functions
- Enquiry into complaints of human rights violations (Sec. 12).
- Recommend compensation or prosecution.
- Submit annual reports to legislature or Parliament.
CHALLENGES ACROSS COMMISSIONS
District, State, and National Commissions are important across sectors in terms of policy and statutory framework, but they are subject to major operational and structural limitations. Persistent vacancies, poor infrastructure, restricted enforcement authority, and overlapping jurisdictional boundaries all hinder their efficacy. These problems make it more difficult for them to provide prompt and efficient justice or rights-based initiatives.
Vacancies in Key Positions
The frequent vacancy of important positions, such as Presidents and Members, is a major barrier to the effective operation of commissions. For example, the adjudicatory powers of several State and District Consumer Commissions have been severely hampered by their lack of complete benches. Nearly 35% of authorized positions across State Consumer Commissions were still unfilled, according to a 2022 press release from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. This had a direct effect on case disposal rates and increased pendency.[13] Similar to this, a number of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) have not been able to carry out their mandate under the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993 because they lack a chairperson.[14]
Inadequate Infrastructure and Funding
Another systemic difficulty is the commission’s insufficient infrastructure. Most District Commissions operate from underequipped facilities with few staff, no courtrooms, and inadequate IT support. ³ State Women’s Commissions frequently lack basic resources such as autonomous office space, research professionals, and administrative staff.[15] This infrastructural gap not only weakens the credibility of these authorities, but it also limits access to justice for vulnerable complainants. The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 requires the Central Government to give financial assistance for commissions. However, funds are not consistently disbursed and utilized among states.
Limitations in Order Enforcement
Another significant difficulty is the enforcement of decisions. Although Consumer Commissions have the statutory authority to issue enforceable orders, execution remains a bottleneck. Many instances involving compensation or reimbursement orders take years to execute. This has caused widespread dissatisfaction and a lack of trust in the quasi-judicial process. However, the suggestions of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the National Commission for Women (NCW) are not legally binding.[16]
Lack of clear Jurisdiction
The lack of defined jurisdictional boundaries between separate commissions causes procedural uncertainty and duplication. A single grievance is often investigated by various commissioners at the same time, such as a custodial death involving a woman from a marginalized group by the NHRC, NCW, and the State Commission. This causes delays, contradicting suggestions, and institutional inefficiencies.[17]
CONCLUSION
In India, the tripartite commission system is essential to upholding rights and delivering justice. However, depending on their operational capabilities, autonomy, and legal authority, their efficacy differs throughout industries. While women’s and human rights commissions struggle with non-binding recommendations, consumer commissions enjoy the advantages of enforceable authority. Accountability, more financing, and structural changes are essential for a judicial system that is accessible and inclusive. Structured reforms are required to create a truly inclusive and responsive justice system. These must include legally enforceable powers for specific commissions, proper financial allocation, digital process integration, and consistent appointment procedures. Furthermore, promoting inter-commission coordination and enhancing citizen participation can significantly improve transparency and confidence. A unified, empowered, and well-resourced commission architecture is required not only for successful grievance resolution, but also to fulfill India’s constitutional duty of justice, equality, and dignity for everyone.
REFERENCES
- The Constitution of India
- The Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- The National Commission for Women Act, 1990
- The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
- DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
- Law Commission of India, Report No. 272 (2017)
- Ministry of Consumer Affairs – Annual Reports, https://consumeraffairs.nic.in.
- NHRC and NCW websites and annual publications, https://nhrc.nic.in
- U.P.D. Kesari, Administrative Law 210 (Central Law Publications, 26th ed. 2022).
- Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC Online NCDRC 111 (India).
- Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, 2021 SCC Online NCDRC 147 (India).
- Surya Deva, Taking Rights Seriously: Enforcing Human Rights Commissions’ Recommendations in India, 49(2) J. Indian L. Inst. 237, 243–245 (2007).
[1] U.P.D. Kesari, Administrative Law 210 (Central Law Publications, 26th ed. 2022).
[2] India Const. sch. VII, list III.
[3] Dr. Upender Sethi, Comparative Analysis of Consumer Protection Act 1986 & 2019, https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2022/5/1679.pdf.
[4] Consumer Protection Act, No. 35 of 2019, s. 2(7), Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
[5] Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, 2021 SCC Online NCDRC 147 (India).
[6] Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC Online NCDRC 111 (India).
[7] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s.41, 51 & 67.
[8] National Commission for Women Act, No. 20 of 1990, s.10, Acts of Parliament, 1990 (India).
[9] National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi, (2005) SCC Online Del 379 (India).
[10] The Protection of Human Rights Act, No. 10 of 1994, s 2(d)
[11] D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 (India).
[12] National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742 (India).
[13] Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Status Report on Consumer Commissions (2022),https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/.
[14] The Protection of Human Rights Act, No. 10 of 1994, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India), NHRC, Annual Report 2020–21 (2022), https://nhrc.nic.in
[15] National Commission for Women, Annual Report 2021–22 (2022), https://ncw.nic.in
[16] The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1994, s. 18 &19.
[17] Surya Deva, Taking Rights Seriously: Enforcing Human Rights Commissions’ Recommendations in India, 49(2) J. Indian L. Inst. 237, 243–245 (2007).
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments