Consider the following statements regarding the National Human Rights Commission of India: 1. I. Its Chairman must be a retired Chief Justice of India. 2. II. It has formations in each state as State Human Rights Commission. 3. III. Its powers are only recommendatory in nature. 4. IV. It is mandatory to appoint a woman as a member of the Commission. Which of the above statements are correct?

1. Statement I: The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, states that the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) shall be a person who has been a Chief Justice of India. This statement is correct (based on the Act as it stood for many years, including 1999). 2. Statement II: The Act provides for the establishment of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) in states, but the NHRC itself does not have 'formations' (like branches) in each state. SHRCs are separate statutory bodies. Thus, the wording makes this statement incorrect. 3. Statement III: The NHRC's functions are primarily advisory and investigatory. It can make recommendations to the government or authorities, but its decisions are not directly binding or enforceable by the Commission itself. Its powers are recommendatory in nature. This statement is correct. 4. Statement IV: The original Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 specified the composition, which included members with knowledge of human rights. While the importance of gender representation is acknowledged, the Act did not initially mandate the appointment of a woman as a member in such explicit terms as 'mandatory', although subsequent amendments and practices emphasized diversity. Based on the strict wording of the original Act and the term 'mandatory', this statement might be considered incorrect or debatable in the 1999 context. However, some interpretations might consider the intent or practice. Given that I and III are clearly correct, and II is clearly incorrect, the most likely intended answer focuses on I and III. 5. Therefore, statements I and III are correct.