Human Rights Day, observed annually on 10th December, commemorates the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 by the United Nations. This declaration remains the cornerstone of international human rights law, affirming a global commitment to the dignity, equality, and freedom of every individual. The theme for Human Rights Day 2025 is “Everyday Essentials“, which underscores the need for accessible and affordable basic services, such as health, education, water, and housing, as fundamental human rights.

The Significance of Human Rights Day

Human Rights Day was formally established by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 1950, following the adoption of the UDHR, which set a global standard for the protection of human rights. The UDHR declared that every individual, regardless of nationality, race, religion, or gender, is entitled to certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since then, December 10th has become a day to reflect on the progress made in securing these rights and to address the persistent challenges faced by vulnerable populations worldwide.

The 2025 theme of “Everyday Essentials” draws attention to the importance of basic services as human rights. In a world where millions still lack access to clean water, education, or health services, it is essential to recognize that these are not just commodities, but fundamental rights necessary for the fulfillment of human dignity and the right to an adequate standard of living.

From a sociological perspective, this theme resonates with Emile Durkheim’s concept of social solidarity. Durkheim argued that societal cohesion is not just based on shared beliefs or values, but also on the collective provision of essential needs. Access to health, education, and other basic services is necessary for social cohesion and the smooth functioning of society. Inequalities in access to these essentials, therefore, not only harm individuals but also destabilize the social fabric, increasing the potential for conflict and fragmentation.

India and Human Rights: Constitutional and Legal Framework

In India, human rights are primarily protected under the Constitution of India, which enshrines fundamental rights under Part III, including the right to equality (Article 14), freedom of speech (Article 19), and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). These rights provide the legal framework for ensuring the dignity and freedom of individuals within the country.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

India’s commitment to protecting human rights was further strengthened by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Act defines human rights as those rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of individuals as guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants and enforceable by Indian courts.

The Act serves as the foundation for the creation of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), as well as State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs), and the establishment of Human Rights Courts. These bodies were set up to promote and protect human rights and address violations of these rights in a timely and efficient manner.

The Role of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

Establishment and Purpose

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was established on 12th October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It was set up in conformity with the Paris Principles (1991), which outline the structure and functioning of national human rights institutions. The NHRC acts as the watchdog of human rights in India, ensuring that the rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are upheld.

From a Max Weberian perspective, the NHRC can be seen as an instrument of the state designed to regulate the bureaucratic structure of governance and provide mechanisms for individuals to hold the state accountable. Weber argued that state power is justified through rational-legal authority, where institutions such as the NHRC play a key role in ensuring that the state’s actions align with the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights. However, as we will see, this rational-legal framework often faces challenges when institutional biases or delays hinder justice.

Composition and Appointment

The NHRC is a multi-member body, consisting of:

• A Chairman (who must have been the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court).
• Four members appointed by the President of India based on the recommendations of a six-member committee that includes the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the leaders of the opposition in both Houses of Parliament, and the Union Home Minister.

The chairman and members serve a term of three years or until they reach the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. They can be removed by the President under specific circumstances.

Functions of NHRC

The NHRC is tasked with:

• Inquiring into human rights violations by public servants either suo motu (on its own) or based on petitions from individuals.
• Intervening in court cases involving human rights violations.
• Visiting jails and detention centers to ensure the humane treatment of inmates and making recommendations for their welfare.
• Reviewing constitutional and legal safeguards for human rights and recommending measures for their better implementation.
• Promoting human rights literacy and spreading awareness about the safeguards available for their protection.
• Encouraging the efforts of NGOs working on human rights.

Since its inception, the NHRC has registered over 23.8 lakh complaints and has recommended more than Rs 264 crore as compensation for the victims of human rights violations.

Limitations of NHRC

While the NHRC plays a crucial role in safeguarding human rights in India, it faces several challenges:

1. Lack of Investigation Powers: The NHRC does not have an investigation mechanism of its own. It relies on the Central and State Governments to investigate human rights violations, which can lead to delays and inefficiencies.
2. Recommendations Are Non-Binding: The NHRC can only make recommendations to the government, but it lacks the power to enforce decisions. This often results in partial or no compliance with the Commission’s recommendations.
3. Limited Jurisdiction: The NHRC’s jurisdiction is often limited in cases involving the armed forces or violations by government bodies that fall outside its purview.
4. Underfunding and Political Challenges: The NHRC suffers from inadequate funding, which hampers its ability to carry out its functions effectively. Furthermore, it is sometimes seen as a post-retirement destination for judges or bureaucrats with political affiliations, leading to questions about its independence.
5. Delayed Action on Complaints: Many complaints are not addressed promptly, as the NHRC cannot investigate incidents that occurred more than one year ago.

From a Karl Marxian perspective, the NHRC’s limitations can be seen as a manifestation of state power working to maintain the status quo, often protecting the interests of the ruling class rather than the marginalized. Marx argued that the state, despite its claims of neutrality, is ultimately a tool of the dominant class and may therefore fail to adequately protect the rights of marginalized communities. This critique is evident in the way state institutions often delay or dilute the implementation of human rights protections.

Reforms to Strengthen the NHRC

To enhance the effectiveness of the NHRC and ensure better protection of human rights, the following reforms are necessary:

1. Enforceable Decisions: The government should grant the NHRC the power to enforce its recommendations, making it a more powerful institution in the protection of human rights.
2. Increased Transparency: The NHRC should become more transparent in its operations, and its recommendations should be published regularly to ensure accountability.
3. Independent Staffing: The NHRC should develop an independent cadre of staff with the expertise and experience necessary to carry out its work efficiently.
4. Greater Autonomy: To ensure its impartiality, the NHRC’s appointments and functioning must be free from political influence. Including members from civil society and human rights activists can help bring diverse perspectives to the Commission.
5. Empowerment of State Commissions: State Human Rights Commissions should be empowered with greater authority, including the ability to call for information from the national government.
6. Strengthening Laws: The government must update old laws to keep pace with modern human rights issues and ensure greater protection for marginalized communities.

Conclusion: Celebrating Human Rights Day

Human Rights Day is not just a reminder of the importance of human dignity, equality, and freedom, but also an opportunity to reflect on the challenges still faced in ensuring these rights for all. In India, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and institutions like the NHRC play a pivotal role in safeguarding the rights of individuals, but more reforms are needed to overcome existing limitations.

On this Human Rights Day, as we reflect on the 2025 theme of “Everyday Essentials”, it is important to remember that access to basic services and protection of fundamental rights are crucial to building a just, inclusive, and equitable society. From Durkheim’s social solidarity to Marx’s critique of state power, sociological perspectives remind us that human rights are not just legal instruments—they are essential to maintaining the social cohesion and justice needed for a stable society.