NHRC's role is largely recommendatory. Does this limit how effective its advisories are? Discuss with reference to its interventions on prison conditions.

Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the NHRC can inquire and recommend but cannot enforce. Its October 2026 Advisory on the Protection of Human Rights of Female Inmates and their Children [8] shows that this limits the Commission's power to compel, not its influence. How much difference the Advisory makes depends on follow-up.

How the recommendatory role limits effectiveness

• No enforcement: the Advisory asks only for an Action Taken Report (ATR) within two months [1]. States write their own ATRs, so they are not an independent inspection.
• Federal constraint: prisons are a State subject, and the Union's role is only advisory [5]. Key protections have been in the Model Prison Manual 2016 for years without being applied everywhere: children up to six may stay with their mothers, women's enclosures have women-only staff, and pregnant women cannot be punished by close confinement. Their use still depends on States adopting the Manual [4].
• Root causes lie elsewhere: prison occupancy was 131.4% in 2022 [2]. About 85% of the 1,537 mothers living in jail with 1,764 children were undertrials [6]. This is a bail and court-delay problem that an advisory cannot fix.
• Data gaps: there is no reliable data on children living with their mothers in prison [2].

How NHRC interventions still make a difference

• Agenda-setting and data: in April 2025 the NHRC took suo motu cognisance and required all States/UTs to report within four weeks, including the number of women prisoners with babies in jail [3].
• Building consensus: its October 2025 conference proposed interim bail for pregnant and lactating women, need-based arrests and a National Policy on Custodial Women. The Commission also committed to a monitoring mechanism [2].
• Reach beyond prison departments: the Advisory went to nine Union Ministries and the DGPs of all States/UTs. Its ten areas for action include legal aid, mulakat (prison visits) and rehabilitation [1].
• Pressure through records: written ATRs can be checked against what the NHRC itself finds, which exposes States that lag behind.

Assessment: the limits are real but not fatal. The Advisory's effect depends on follow-through, not on legal force.

In short, the NHRC cannot order compliance, but it shapes standards, data and accountability. The way forward is to publish State-wise ATRs and follow up with States that do not reply. States should also put mothers with children first in the continuous Section 479 BNSS review of undertrials [7]. Time-bound replies to NHRC recommendations would also help. Together, these steps would turn advice into action and uphold the dignity guaranteed under Article 21, in line with SDG 5 and 16.