Consider the following statements about the Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission (UHRC) and choose the correct option: 1. The UHRC came into existence on 13 May 2013. 2. The objective of UHRC was to bring about greater accountability and transparency in governance.
- (a)Only 1 is correct
- (b)Only 2 is correct
- (c)Both 1 and 2 are correct
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2 is correct
Correct — C, Both 1 and 2 are correct.
Statement 1 matches the record. The Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission was notified on 13 May 2013, the day Justice Vijender Jain took charge as its head — more than twelve years after Uttarakhand itself was created in November 2000.
Statement 2 is an aim, not a legal power, and it fits what the body does. A commission that summons witnesses, inspects places of detention, inquires into the acts of public servants and requires the State Government to report the action taken is working on the executive's accountability.
The transparency half rests on the same statute. The Commission's inquiry reports are published together with the government's comments and the action taken on them, and its annual report is laid before the State Legislature, which puts the record in front of elected members.
The two statements stand independently, and each holds, so Both 1 and 2 are correct.
The idea to carry away: a broadly worded objective is not by itself a wrong one. Test an aim statement against what the body is empowered to do, and judge each numbered statement on its own.
- (a)Only 1 is correct — This would be right if the second statement claimed a power the Commission does not hold — that its findings bind the State Government, say, or that it can set aside an official order.
A claim that the Commission's recommendation is binding is what 'Only 1 is correct' answers. Under the Protection of Human Rights Act the Commission recommends, and the government concerned forwards its comments and the action taken within a month.
- (b)Only 2 is correct — This needs statement 1 to fail. It is the right answer to a version dated to the year Uttarakhand itself was carved out, 2000, or to 1993, the year the parent Protection of Human Rights Act was passed.
Neither year is this Commission's own start. The date printed in statement 1, 13 May 2013, is when the Uttarakhand Commission was notified and took up work.
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2 is correct — 'Neither' requires both statements to fail, and statement 1 survives a check against the Commission's notification date.
It is the right answer to a pairing where both the date and the described aim are wrong — a version placing the Commission in the year the State was formed and describing it as an appellate forum sitting over High Court orders.
A State Human Rights Commission is a statutory body set up by a State Government under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The same Act creates the National Human Rights Commission, so the two share a legal parent.
It inquires into complaints of human rights violation, on a petition or on its own motion, and into negligence by a public servant in preventing such a violation. While inquiring it carries the powers of a civil court.
Its output is a recommendation rather than an order. The government concerned forwards its comments, including the action taken, within a month, and the Commission's annual report is laid before the State Legislature.
Human rights protection in India runs on parallel tracks — the writ jurisdiction of the constitutional courts, the criminal law, and this statutory commission layer that can inquire, publicise and recommend.
Uttarakhand's Commission sits at the state end of that layer. An item like this separates two dates that are easy to fuse: the year the enabling law was passed, and the day a particular State actually constituted its commission under it.
- The Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission was notified on 13 May 2013.
- Justice Vijender Jain, formerly Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, headed the Commission from May 2013.
- State Human Rights Commissions are constituted under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
- Section 21(5) lets a State Commission inquire into human rights violations on matters relatable to entries in the State List and the Concurrent List.
- The Chairperson and Members are appointed by the Governor, after a recommendation from a committee headed by the Chief Minister.
- Under Section 18 the government concerned forwards its comments, including the action taken on the Commission's recommendations, within a month.
- Under Section 18 the Commission publishes its inquiry report together with those comments and the action taken.
- A State Commission's annual report goes to the State Government and is laid before the State Legislature.
- Uttarakhand was created on 9 November 2000, so its Commission followed more than twelve years later.
Each of these two is a creation of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; the level of government it answers to is what changes.
- Statement 2 is a broad aim rather than a legal power; a broadly worded objective is not automatically a wrong one, so test the aim against the body's statutory functions.
- The parent Act dates from 1993 and the State from 2000; neither year is the Uttarakhand Commission's own notification date of 13 May 2013.
- Reading 'accountability' as a binding power overstates the office — the Commission recommends and the government replies with the action taken.
- In a two-statement item each statement carries its own verdict; letting a confident reading of one settle the other collapses two judgements into one.
Two things are testable here: the notification date, 13 May 2013, and the Commission's powers under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The powers side is statutory rather than local — who appoints the Chairperson, where the annual report is laid, whether the recommendation binds. Those answers sit in the Act and read the same for any State Commission, so learning them once covers every State's body.
UKPSC_2024_PRE_GSI_Q362024Shared ground: both items ask whether a named commission is a live statutory institution. The 2024 question lists four bodies and asks which is no longer in existence, with the National Human Rights Commission among the options and the Planning Commission — replaced by NITI Aayog in 2015 — as the one that has gone. What differs is level and test. That item is national and turns on a body ceasing to exist; this one fixes the day a particular State's commission started, and then asks you to judge its stated aim.
MAINS_2014_GS-II_Q82014Same institution type and the same accountability framing: the Mains question asks how effective the National Human Rights Commission can be as a complement to the judiciary when other accountability mechanisms support it. It treats a human rights commission as an accountability device, which is what statement 2 here asserts. Scope and form differ. The NHRC is national, while a State Commission's inquiries are tied to State and Concurrent List matters; and a Mains answer assesses effectiveness where this Prelims item turns on a date and a one-line aim.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission has been constituted under which one of the following Acts?
- (a)The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
- (b)The Right to Information Act, 2005
- (c)The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
- (d)The Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000
Answera — A State Human Rights Commission is constituted under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the same statute that creates the National Human Rights Commission.The Right to Information Act, 2005 sets up Information Commissions. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 lets a government appoint an ad hoc inquiry commission. The Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 created the State of Uttarakhand, not this Commission.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Chairperson of a State Human Rights Commission is appointed by
- (a)the President
- (b)the Governor
- (c)the Chief Justice of the High Court
- (d)the Chief Minister
Answerb — The Governor appoints the Chairperson and Members of a State Human Rights Commission by warrant under his hand and seal, after a recommendation from a committee headed by the Chief Minister.The President appoints the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, which is what (a) describes. The Chief Justice of the High Court (c) is not the appointing authority. The Chief Minister (d) heads the recommending committee, and a recommendation is not the appointment.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Which one of the following statements about a State Human Rights Commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is correct?
- (a)Its recommendations are binding on the State Government.
- (b)Its annual report is laid before Parliament.
- (c)It may inquire into human rights violations on matters relatable to entries in the State List and the Concurrent List.
- (d)Its Chairperson is appointed by the Chief Justice of India.
Answerc — Section 21(5) ties a State Commission's inquiry to human rights violations on matters relatable to entries in the State List and the Concurrent List.(a) fails because the Commission recommends; the government forwards its comments and the action taken within a month. (b) fails because a State Commission's annual report goes to the State Government and is laid before the State Legislature.
(d) fails because the appointment is made by the Governor, on the recommendation of a committee headed by the Chief Minister.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission came into existence in which year?
- (a)2000
- (b)2005
- (c)2013
- (d)2018
Answerc — The Commission was notified on 13 May 2013, the day Justice Vijender Jain took charge as its head.2000 is the year Uttarakhand itself was created, on 9 November. 2005 is the year of the Right to Information Act. 2018 falls within the Commission's working life rather than at its start.