akistan has built an extensive network of institutions for human rights protection, yet a clear gap remains between this architecture and people’s lived experience. Child abuse, gender-based violence, trafficking, unsafe labour conditions, delays in justice delivery and weak enforcement of laws continue to surface. The question is no longer whether Pakistan has human rights institutions — it does. But how effectively are the parliament and provincial assemblies exercising their oversight role? Without consistent parliamentary oversight and follow-through, even the best-designed institutions fail to deliver meaningful protection.

At the federal level, the National Commission for Human Rights, the National Commission on the Rights of the Child and the National Commission on the Status of Women have clear mandates and statutory independence under respective laws. Provinces have their own Commissions on the Status of Women. Sindh also has a dedicated human rights commission. These bodies review laws, investigate violations, identify systemic gaps and issue detailed recommendations to governments and other stakeholders. Their annual and special reports are submitted to the relevant governments. Under their legal mandates, many of these reports must also be laid before the parliament or provincial assemblies. In theory, this framework should provide a solid foundation for accountability.

To support these commissions there is a wide administrative structure that includes provincial departments responsible for human rights and minorities affairs, law, parliamentary affairs and other governance functions, as well as Treaty Implementation Cells, regional offices of the Ministry of Human Rights and various issue-specific taskforces.

The Ministry of Human Rights retains an operational role in the Islamabad Capital Territory and coordinates Pakistan’s international human rights reporting while liaising with provinces on treaty obligations. Taken together, these components form a sizeable system. What is missing, however, is the steady, structured parliamentary oversight needed to ensure that these mechanisms function as an integrated whole.

This gap became more pronounced after the 18th Constitutional Amendment devolved many frontline human rights responsibilities to provincial governments — a shift that strengthened provincial autonomy and brought decision-making closer to communities. However, while the scope of provincial responsibilities expanded, the parliamentary oversight needed to support these functions did not evolve at the same pace. Committees often contend with crowded legislative calendars, narrow agendas and irregular follow-up. As a result, oversight becomes reactive rather than consistent, undermining the effectiveness of devolved powers.

At the federal level, the Senate’s Functional Committee on Human Rights works with a focused mandate to receive complaints and scrutinise violations directly. The National Assembly’s Standing Committee, however, operates within a broad framework that can limit how actively it engages with complex human rights matters. This structural difference shapes how these forums respond to violations, public concerns and long-term policy challenges.

Strong structures deliver results only when their mandates are fully activated. The Senate’s Functional Committee has the authority to receive representations, examine violations, identify systemic gaps and recommend reforms. The real test of oversight is not the number of meetings; it is the depth and continuity of its review. Effective oversight means engaging with statutory reports, calling ministries and institutions to explain shortcomings, issuing clear recommendations and following up until meaningful action is taken.

Pakistan has the laws, the institutions and the evidence. What it has lacked is a parliamentary culture that treats human rights oversight as a central pillar of democratic governance. Until that culture takes root, even the strongest commissions will operate in isolation and citizens will remain vulnerable to systemic failures.

A comparison with the Public Accounts Committee is instructive. The PAC has institutionalised a predictable culture of scrutiny: ministries expect detailed questioning because the Committee examines audit reports systematically, reconvenes when compliance falters and follows procedures that sustain continuity. Human rights oversight, however, has not yet developed this level of regularity. As a result, gaps can persist simply because no consistent mechanism pushes them forward.

Similar gaps persist at the provincial level, where the stakes are even higher because provinces now carry most human rights responsibilities. Provincial human rights committees exist but are often underutilised. Meetings may be irregular, technical support limited and follow-up inconsistent. This is especially concerning because once committees and their members are notified — and Assembly Secretariats and departments are in place — activating these bodies should not be an administrative challenge. What is lacking is a governance culture that treats human rights oversight as a routine, essential function rather than an optional exercise.

The recent delay in operationalising the National Commission for Minorities’ Rights, despite the parliament having passed the law, highlights the issue. Legislation is only the starting point. Meaningful progress depends on how actively legislatures— federal and provincial — monitor implementation, ensure timely appointments and verify whether institutions are functioning effectively.

A credible oversight system requires more than intent. It requires procedure, expertise and sustained follow-through. Committees cannot conduct meaningful scrutiny if they rely on overstretched secretariat staff. They need dedicated legal and policy analysts and because human rights spans complex areas — from treaty obligations to gender justice, labour rights, child protection and criminal law — they must regularly draw on civil society and independent experts to ensure deliberations are grounded in evidence.

Pakistan now needs four practical reforms to strengthen parliamentary oversight. First, human rights committees — federal and provincial — should work with strengthened and more clearly defined mandates, drawing lessons from the Senate’s Functional Committee on Human Rights and specialised bodies such as the Punjab Assembly’s Committee on Law Reforms and Delegated Legislation. Second, necessary amendments should be introduced in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the parliament and provincial assemblies to reinforce the mandate, functioning and responsiveness of human rights-related committees. Third, committees must hold regular meetings guided by clear annual work plans. Fourth, statutory reports should automatically trigger scheduled hearings where committees first hear from the commissions on their findings and then call relevant ministries and departments to outline corrective measures, commit to time-bound responses and follow up systematically to ensure action. These measures, might appear modest but will significantly strengthen oversight at all tiers.

Ultimately, this is not simply a procedural debate. Human rights deserve the same seriousness the parliament gives to public finance. Legislators scrutinise audit irregularities; they should apply similar discipline when addressing failures that harm survivors of abuse, victims of violence or children whose rights are denied. Oversight cannot be symbolic — it is a constitutional obligation.

Pakistan has the laws, the institutions and the evidence. What is lacking is a parliamentary culture that treats human rights oversight as a central pillar of democratic governance. Until that culture takes root, even the strongest commissions will operate in isolation and citizens will remain vulnerable to systemic failures. Strengthening parliamentary oversight is essential not only for institutional reform but also for rebuilding public trust and ensuring that rights are not merely promised but genuinely protected.

The writer, executive director of Search for Justice, has more than 18 years of experience working for human rights and child rights. He can be reached at: [email protected]