NHRC as the Poor Person’s Court: When the Door of Justice Opens for the Powerless
By Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi
For a poor person, justice is rarely only a question of law. It is a question of access, voice, dignity and power. A person who loses a family member in custody, a woman whose complaint is ignored, a Dalit family facing discrimination, or a child left vulnerable after the death of a parent may possess the same constitutional rights as every other citizen, but exercising those rights can be extraordinarily difficult. The cost of litigation, legal representation, distance from institutions, lack of information, fear of public authorities and social inequality can turn the formal promise of justice into something remote and inaccessible. It is in this space that the National Human Rights Commission of India can perform an important democratic function. The NHRC is not a substitute for a constitutional or criminal court, and its recommendations have a distinct legal character. Yet for poor, marginalized and socially excluded communities, it can provide an accessible institutional pathway through which an alleged human-rights violation can enter the machinery of public accountability. In this sense, the NHRC can be understood as a “poor person’s court”—not because it replaces the courts, but because it can open a door to justice for people who may otherwise struggle to enter the formal legal system.
The significance of this role becomes particularly visible in the case of Ashok Manjhi, a 39-year-old man whose death following his arrest in Bihar became the subject of a human-rights complaint before the NHRC. The official complaint records the incident as a custodial death on 7 November 2022. It alleged that Ashok had been taken into custody in connection with a liquor case, subsequently found seriously injured and taken for medical treatment, where he died. The police account, as recorded in the complaint, attributed the death to an accident, while the family alleged custodial torture. The complaint sought an impartial investigation, compensation and justice.
The chronology that followed illustrates how a human-rights complaint can develop into a sustained accountability process. On 10 January 2023, a complaint was submitted to the NHRC and recorded under Diary No. 497/IN/2023, with Lenin Raghuvanshi identified as the complainant. The NHRC subsequently recorded that it took cognizance on 18 January 2023 and directed the DGP, Bihar, the District Magistrate and the SSP, Munger, to submit reports. After receiving those reports, the Commission on 31 July 2023 directed its Investigation Division to analyse the material. The Investigation Division recommended consideration of a CID inquiry, suitable compensation to the next of kin and departmental action against the police personnel concerned.
The case acquired an important additional dimension on 16 July 2025, when the Commission focused on the five minor children who had been orphaned. It directed an inquiry into whether the Child Welfare Committee had been informed, whether appropriate measures had been taken under the Juvenile Justice framework, where the children were living, who was caring for them and what rehabilitation they had received. It also sought Individual Care Plans and Social Investigation Reports where necessary. This was significant because the consequences of an alleged human-rights violation do not end with the immediate victim. Death, torture or serious injury can create long-term consequences for dependants through loss of income, education, housing, care and emotional security.
The compensation and accountability process continued in 2026. On 7 January 2026, the Commission directed the Chief Secretary of Bihar to show cause as to why ₹7,50,000 should not be recommended as compensation to the next of kin and directed the DGP, Bihar, to report on departmental action against the police officials concerned. At a later stage, the Commission recorded that an order dated 11 August 2026 had sanctioned ₹7,50,000 compensation and directed the District Magistrate, Munger, to identify the next of kin, disburse the amount and submit proof of payment.
The distinction between sanction and payment is important. The documents establish that compensation was sanctioned; they do not establish that the family had received it. Indeed, the NHRC's latest communication, dated 2 November 2026, specifically asks for proof of payment and an additional or complete report. The District Magistrate, Munger, has been asked to submit the required report by 26 November 2026, after which the matter will be considered further by the Commission.
Therefore, the present status should be stated precisely: the case remains pending before the NHRC as of 2 November 2026. The Commission has taken cognizance, sought official reports, involved its Investigation Division, considered recommendations concerning investigation, compensation and departmental action, examined the circumstances of the five orphaned children, and recorded the sanction of ₹7.5 lakh compensation. However, the Commission is still awaiting proof of disbursement and the required additional report. This is not a minor procedural detail. For a poor family, the difference between an order on paper and a remedy actually received can define whether justice has become real.
This is where the expression “poor person’s court” acquires its deeper meaning. It should not be understood literally. The NHRC does not replace the judiciary. Rather, the expression captures the need for an institution through which people with limited financial resources, legal knowledge or social power can bring allegations of serious human-rights violations into a formal accountability process. The value of such an institution lies not only in receiving complaints but also in its ability to seek information, investigate, examine the consequences of violations and press public authorities for appropriate action.
The international experience of National Human Rights Institutions provides a useful context. The UN Paris Principles emphasize independence, a broad human-rights mandate, accessibility, adequate resources and the capacity to investigate and address human-rights concerns. Different countries have developed different institutional approaches, but the underlying concern is similar: human-rights protection must be accessible to people whose social and economic position makes ordinary avenues of justice difficult to navigate.
South Africa demonstrates the importance of combining individual complaints with attention to systemic human-rights conditions. Kenya illustrates the value of bringing complaint mechanisms and legal assistance closer to underserved communities. The United Kingdom provides an example of a human-rights and equality institution using investigation, enforcement and strategic legal intervention. These systems are not identical to India's NHRC and should not be mechanically compared. Their relevance lies in showing that effective human-rights institutions can perform complementary functions—receiving complaints, investigating violations, addressing systemic problems, assisting affected communities and encouraging institutional reform.
For India, the central lesson is that accessibility must be substantive, not merely procedural. A complaint mechanism may be formally open to everyone while remaining practically distant from people who lack money, mobility, literacy, legal knowledge or confidence in approaching public institutions. Human-rights protection therefore requires not only an accessible complaint process but also effective follow-up, implementation monitoring, community outreach and attention to patterns of recurring violations.
The Ashok Manjhi case also highlights the importance of looking beyond compensation. Compensation can provide essential material relief to a family living in poverty, but it cannot by itself restore a life, dignity or trust. A survivor-centred human-rights remedy should aspire to truth, accountability, compensation, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-recurrence. The NHRC's attention to the five children left behind demonstrates why the remedy must consider the wider family and social consequences of an alleged violation.
Civil society and human-rights defenders have an important role in this process. Marginalized people may experience injustice long before they encounter an institution capable of addressing it. Human-rights organizations, lawyers, journalists and community workers can help document those experiences and bring them into formal accountability mechanisms. In this case, the complaint record itself reflects the role of a human-rights defender in bringing the alleged custodial death to the NHRC's attention.
The case therefore raises a larger democratic question: what happens when a powerless citizen confronts the power of the State? Democracy is not measured only through elections, legislation and constitutional guarantees. It is also measured by whether a poor family can demand an explanation after a custodial death, whether orphaned children remain visible to public institutions, whether a sanctioned remedy actually reaches the family, and whether allegations of official wrongdoing receive credible institutional examination.
The Ashok Manjhi matter shows both the promise and the unfinished nature of human-rights accountability. A complaint submitted in January 2023 has moved through investigation, consideration of the welfare of five orphaned children, consideration and sanction of compensation, and continuing demands for implementation. Yet, as of 2 November 2026, the process remains open because the NHRC is still awaiting proof of payment and an additional report.
That is perhaps the most important lesson. Justice is not complete when an institution passes an order; justice becomes meaningful when the remedy reaches the person or family whose rights have been violated. The credibility of the human-rights system therefore depends not only on its ability to hear the powerless but also on its capacity to follow the case through to implementation.
The NHRC should consequently be understood not as a replacement for the courts, but as an important democratic bridge between vulnerable citizens and the State. Its effectiveness should ultimately be judged from the margins: by whether the poor, the prisoner, the survivor, the marginalized woman, the migrant worker, the landless labourer and the orphaned child can make their voices heard and obtain meaningful institutional attention.
When the powerless person knocks on the door of justice, the door must open. And when it opens, justice must extend beyond a paper order to dignity, accountability, rehabilitation and protection against recurrence.
That is the deeper promise of the NHRC as a doorway to justice for the poor.
From: <nhrc.india@nic.in>
Date: Mon, Nov 2, 2026 at 4:00 PM
Subject: Additional Information Called for(AIC) - 68/4/22/2023-ad
To: <dm-munger.bih@nic.in>
Cc: <pvchr.adv@gmail.com>
| NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION |
| MANAV ADHIKAR BHAWAN BLOCK-C, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI- 110023 |
| Fax No.: 011-24651332 Website: www.nhrc.nic.in |
| (Law Division) |
| Case No.- 68/4/22/2023-ad |
| Date : 02/11/2026 |
| To, |
| THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE Fort Area, Collectorate MUNGER BIHAR Email- dm-munger.bih@nic.in |
| Sub : Complaint/ Intimation from |
LENIN RAGHUVANSHI |
| Subject: Additional Information Called for(AIC) -68/4/22/2023-ad. |
| Sir/ Madam, |
| I am directed to say that the matter was considered by the Commission on 08/10/2026 and the Commission has directed as follows.: |
| The complainant, an HRD, vide complaint dated 10.01.2023, brought to the notice of the Commission the alleged death of Ashok Manjhi at Sarmera Husaina Police Station, District Munger, on 07.11.2022. Upon receipt of the reports, the Commission, vide its proceedings dated 31.07.2023, directed its Investigation Division to analyse the reports and submit its recommendations. (i) whether the Child Welfare Committee of the district had been informed of the incident; (ii) whether the Child Welfare Committee had taken appropriate steps as required under the Juvenile Justice Act; (iii) the present whereabouts of the children and the persons in whose custody they were being brought up; (iv) the rehabilitation measures, if any, provided to the children through the Child Welfare Committee. Ms. Rashmi Bharti, BDO, Munger, and Shri Prabhat Ranjan are present before the Commission. They have submitted a copy of the order dated 11.08.2026 sanctioning compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the next of kin of the deceased, Ashok Manjhi. The District Magistrate, Munger, was also directed to identify the next of kin of the deceased, disburse the sanctioned amount through a cheque/demand draft, and submit proof of payment to the department. In view of the above, the District Magistrate, Munger, is directed to submit proof of payment to the Commission within two weeks. |
| 2. It is therefore, requested that the additional/ complete report as directed by the Commission in the matter be sent latest by 26/11/2026, for futher consideration by the Commission. |
| 3. Any communication by public authorities in this matter may please be sent to the Commission through the HRCNet Portal (https://hrcnet.nic.in) by using id and password already provided to the public authorities (click Authority Login). Any Audio/ Video CDs/ pen drives etc. may be sent through Speed Post/ per bearer. The reports/ responses sent through email may not be entertained |
Your’s faithfully |
| CC to |
Indrajeet Kumar |
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
