The United Nations-linked body Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions “GANHRI” deferred the accreditation of the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) for the second year again. The decision was taken during the meeting of the Sub-committee on Accreditations (SCA) held on May 1, 2024. The complete report of SCA on this meeting is yet to be made public. GANHRI, through the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), is responsible for reviewing and accrediting NHRIs in compliance with the Paris Principles.[1] This is a rigorous, peer-based process, undertaken by representatives of NHRIs from each of the four regions: Africa, Americas, Asia Pacific and Europe
This is the first time India’s status has been suspended for two years in a row, in 2023 and in 2024. Officials said the deferral was likely to reviewed later this year. The NHRC India (NHRCI) losing its ability to obtain re-accreditation in reviews is reflective of the NHRC India’s failure to effectively discharge its mandate and respond to the escalating g human rights violations in India. It is also a comment on the absence of pluralism in selection and appointments of its office bearers and other officials, insufficient cooperation with human rights bodies, amongst others. GANHRI SCA in their last meeting also recommended the NHRC India to improve its processes and functions in line with the United Nations Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles). However, both the NHRC India and the Indian government have yet again failed to make the requisite improvements and therefore the second time deferral GANHRI.
As of December 2023, GANHRI is composed of 120 members in which 88 “A” status accredited NHRIs and 32 “B” status accredited NHRIs. “A” Accreditation is granted on the basis of full compliance with the Paris Principles adopted in year 1993 and “B” Accreditation is on partially compliant with the Paris Principles.
On March 22, 2023 several worldwide Human Rights Bodies namely Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch including 7 others had made representation to the Chairperson, GANHRI urging a review of accreditation of the NHRC at the SCA 2024 Meeting until NHRC India actually improves both independence and functioning in accordance with the Paris Principles.
The Paris Principles require NHRIs to be independent in law, membership, operations, policy and control of resources. They also require that NHRIs have a broad mandate; pluralism in membership; broad functions; adequate powers; adequate resources; cooperative methods; and engage with international bodies.
How NHRC India failed to compliant with the Paris Principles 1993
- Involvement of Police officers in NHRCI investigations:
The Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993 empowers the Indian government to appoint police officers of the rank of Director General of Police or above as necessary for the efficient performance of the NHRCI.7 In the 2017 and 2023 reviews, the SCA had recommended the real or perceived conflict of interest in engaging police officers for the investigation of human rights violations, particularly those committed by the police itself. It had further noted that the Paris Principles require a national human rights institution to operate independent of government interference and recommended amendment of the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA, 1993) in a manner that allows independent appointment of suitable and qualified persons for investigative positions. However, the Indian government has not undertaken any legislative process to fulfil the SCA’s recommendation to date nor has it initiated any consultation on the same. On the contrary, the NHRCI’s website boasts of “multi-dimensional” inquiries by the Investigation department, termed as “specialised”, but comprising solely of police officers.
- Lack of Pluralism and Opacity in the Selection Criteria:
The SCA has repeatedly raised concerns about the lack of diversity in the NHRCI and recommended a “pluralistic balance in its composition and staff” by ensuring the representation of a diverse Indian society including, but not limited to religious or ethnic minorities.
In response, the Indian government expanded the eligibility criteria for a chairperson to include a person who has been Supreme Court judge without adequate legislative consultation. Earlier, only a person who had been the Chief Justice of India was eligible for the position of a chairperson.
Similarly, despite the SCA’s recommendation to amend the PHRA, the legislation continues to empower the Indian government to recruit a civil servant with the rank of Secretary to the Government for the role of Secretary General of the NHRC India This stands squarely in violation of the Paris Principles that are premised on independence from government interference.
A citizens/civil society analysis of the recruitment for chairpersons in the other concurrent thematic commissions on minority rights, child rights, women, persons with disabilities and backward classes, between 2018 and 2023 demonstrate that such recruitments continue to act as de-facto extensions for former government servants or parliamentary members associated with the ruling political party This constitutes a direct attack on the independence of the commissions and stands to compromise autonomy of the institution.
During the 2023 review, the SCA had also noted that three of the six positions in the NHRCI remained vacant. Two of the three positions remain vacant to date. It had also highlighted the lack of gender balance in leadership positions with only 95 out of 393 staff positions held by women in the NHRC.
- Lack of cooperation with human rights bodies:
During the March 2023 review, the SCA had taken note of the NHRCI’s lack of effective engagement with civil society and human rights defenders (HRDs) in India and recommended additional steps to increase its cooperation with them outside of the Core Groups of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and HRDs that the NHRCI has created. The SCA had also recommended the NHRCI to interpret its mandate in a “broad and purposive manner to promote a progressive definition of human rights.
In August 2023, the NHRCI held the first meeting of the re-constituted Core Group on NGOs and HRDs but failed to take note of the deliberate and sustained targeting of religious minorities and human rights defenders under a range of overly broad and vague laws and policies, leading to hate crimes, particularly against Muslims, Christians and Dalits. It also failed to recognise the ongoing erosion of their human rights, including access to education, employment, housing, and violations of their rights to freedom of expression, religion, association and to non-discrimination, which continue to go unpunished.
The NHRCI announced national and lifetime awards for human rights defenders while numerous human rights defenders languish in detention without trial under various draconian laws including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – India’s primary counter terrorism law for years now. This includes the 16 human rights defenders, nine of whom continue to be detained in connection with the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case for more than five years now; Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez who has been in detention since November 2021; and Muslim student activist Umar Khalid and other human rights activists whose bail appeals in connection with the February 2020 Delhi riots have been repeatedly denied by various courts since October 2020. The NHRCI has not taken any concrete steps to respond to the situation of the HRDs or intervene in a timely manner despite various UN special rapporteurs calling on Indian authorities to release the HRD.
It has also failed to take meaningful and timely action on the rising ethnic violence in Manipur which started in May 2023, the intensification of repression in Jammu & Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution in August 2019, the communal violence in Haryana in August 2023, Uttarakhand in June 2023, the human rights violations during the February 2024 farmers protests, the misuse of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act that has been used to silence peaceful dissent, and the Citizenship Amendment Act that was operationalised on 11 March 2024. Human rights defenders have also repeatedly raised concerns about the inordinate delays by the NHRCI to effectively dispose of cases.
What is Accreditation and why does it matter?
Key to the mandate of GANHRI is to accredit NHRIs based on their compliance with the Paris Principles, under the auspices of the OHCHR. The accreditation process is administered by the SCA. The SCA has been reviewing NHRIs’ compliance with the Paris Principles since 1999. Over time, the accreditation process has developed and has been strengthened to ensure the process is fair, rigorous, transparent and consistent.
A review of the jurisprudence of the SCA over time demonstrates that the expectations on NHRIs have increased substantially, as has the ability of the SCA to offer concrete and practical advice to NHRIs in relation to these expectations. This increased rigour has been made necessary by both the proliferation of NHRIs and their increasingly important role at national, regional and global levels. Accreditation signals international acceptance of an NHRI and its compliance with the Paris Principles. As such, it confers substantial legitimacy on an NHRI.
The failure of India’s NHRC to comply with the structural and substantive issues recommended by the GANHRI raises questions of its credibility as an effective national human rights body.
[1] Paris Principles Requirements for National Human Rights Institutions were defined at the first international workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (Oct 7-9), 1991. They were adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Commission by its Resolution 1992/54 of 1992 and by the UN General Assembly in its Resolution 48/134 of 1993. The 1993 Paris Principles regulate to the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights knows as National Human Rights Institutions-NHRIs.
Related:
Nothing ‘Right’ about India’s Human Rights Commission
Minorities Commission forwards CJP’s complaint against Tejasvi Surya Bengaluru DGP