Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the governmentandrsquo;s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court andmdash; it can now hand it over to any of the Courtandrsquo;s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty andmdash; only time will tell whether the wide extension of the governmentandrsquo;s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be andldquo;persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rightsandrdquo;. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the governmentandrsquo;s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer andmdash; though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist andmdash; nor any known human rights activist andmdash; for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRCandrsquo;s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRCandrsquo;s main function is to inquire into complaints of andldquo;violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servantandrdquo;. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country andmdash; from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Huma...

Join the Discussion on the App

Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.

To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.

With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.

The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.

The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.

Q. Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?

a)
The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.
b)
The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.
c)
The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.
d)
The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT: Mock Test (New Pattern) - 15

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill...

The option uses the words ‘in place of’. This means that the option proposes that all the heads of the other sister-bodies who are at present ex-officio members of the NHRC be removed, and in their place the representatives of NGOs be added. This is not what the author proposes in the passage: he proposes the inclusion of representatives of the NGOs, but he does not say that it has to be accompanied by the removal of the heads of sister-bodies. Of the 4 reforms mentioned in the passage, option (B) states the one he is least likely to agree with.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Which of the following options best describes the author’s opinion of the 2019 Amendment to the Protection of Human Rights Act?

View answer

Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Which of the following is/are a potential consequence of the 2019 Amendment to the Protection of Human Rights Act?

View answer

Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Section 6 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act reads as under Term of office of Chairperson and Members—On ceasing to hold office, a Chairperson or a Member shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.The author has mentioned that in the first commission, two sitting members of the Government were given the posts of Governor. If this appointment were to be challenged in the relevant Court, based on this statute, which of the following is the strongest argument that can be made by the Government?

View answer

Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.In which of the following situations can the NHRC conduct an inquiry into a complaint made a person whose human rights have been violated?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question. Indias record in promoting occupational and industrial safety remains weak even with years of robust economic growth. Making work environments safer is a low priority, although the productivity benefits of such investments have always been clear. The consequences are frequently seen in the form of a large number of fatalities and injuries, but in a market that has a steady supply of labour, policymakers tend to ignore the wider impact of such losses. It will be no surprise, therefore, if the deaths of four people, including a senior officer, in a fire at the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation gas facility in Navi Mumbai, or the tragedy that killed nearly two dozen people at a firecracker factory in Batala, Punjab are quickly forgotten. Such incidents make it imperative that the Central government abandon its reductionist approach to the challenge, and engage in serious reform. There is not much evidence, of progressive moves. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2019, introduced in the Lok Sabha in July to combine 13 existing laws pays little attention to the sector-specific requirements of workers. One of its major shortcomings is that formation of safety committees and appointment of safety officers, the latter in the case of establishments with 500 workers, is left to the discretion of State governments. A safe work environment is a basic right, and Indias recent decades of high growth should have ushered in a framework of guarantees. Unfortunately, successive governments have not felt it necessary to ratify many fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Compromising on safety can lead to extreme consequences that go beyond factories and leave something that is etched in the nations memory as in the case of the Bhopal gas disaster. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Opinion, The Hindu] Q.What incident is cited in the passage as an example of the extreme consequences of compromising on safety?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Cleared by Parliament, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill 2019, which makes sweeping changes of far-reaching consequences to the composition of the commission, will soon be in force. Under the amended law, the government’s choice for the NHRC chair will not be limited to former chief justices of the apex court — it can now hand it over to any of the Court’s retired judges. The impact of this change cannot be predicted with certainty — only time will tell whether the wide extension of the government’s options in selecting the NHRC chief is a change for the better or worse.Under the initial NHRC law, its two non-judge members had to be “persons having knowledge of or experience in matters relating to human rights”. The number of such members has now been raised to three including a woman member, but the imprecise provision of keeping the coveted positions open to any person of the government’s unguided choice remains unchanged. Former governments filled them with its retired officers, and the present dispensation once chose to appoint a ruling party office-bearer — though on being challenged in the court he wisely declined the offer. International human rights jurisprudence is a fast-growing legal discipline and there is no dearth of eminent scholars specialising in it, but successive governments have never considered any such specialist — nor any known human rights activist — for membership of the commission.To the list of national commissions whose heads are NHRC’s ex officio members have now been added two more commissions. The commission will thus have more adjunct than full-timer members. Instead, of the heads of its sister-bodies engaged in class-specific work, it would have been more fruitful to associate with NHRC representatives of a few leading NGOs, promoting human rights in general.With a view to ensuring the independence of the commission, its Act prohibits further government employment for its chair and members. Nevertheless, greener pastures technically not covered by the phraseology of the ban have always been waiting for them. The practice was started with the first commission itself, when two of its sitting members were given gubernatorial positions overnight, and continues till date. The new amendment bill does not disturb the related provision of the Act.The NHRC’s main function is to inquire into complaints of “violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant”. But it cannot execute its decisions based on its findings. For that, this high-profile body has to depend either on the central or state government or on the judicial hierarchy in the country — from the top court down to magistrates. The statutory provisions to this effect are not touched by the new amendments.The 2019 changes made by the present dispensation leave a great deal to be desired. By all counts, the NHRC is yet to be assigned its rightful role in the affairs of the country and the society.Q.Of the following, which of the following is the reform that the author is the least likely to favour?a)The NHRC should be given the power to execute its decisions to make it more effective.b)The Act should be amended to include representatives of leading NGOs working for human rights in the Commission in place of heads of other sister-bodies as is the present provision under the Act.c)The provisions relating to the prohibition of the employment of members of the NHRC in Government posts should be re-drafted so that the Government is not able to exploit the loopholes that are currently present in these provisions.d)The criteria for appointment as members of the NHRC should be made more specific so that the Government is not able to appoint members based on its unguided choice.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam