India’s national human rights institution

Until the late 1990s, India lacked an instrumental mechanism for safeguarding human rights. It was only in 1993 that the Protection of Human Rights Act was enacted, paving the way for the establishment of human rights commissions at both the national and state levels. Arguably, a face-saving gesture against concerns donor countries’ apprehensions regarding human rights abuses in various regions of the country during the economic crisis of 1990.

While the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) made commendable strides in its early years – including an opinion against the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2000 -- in recent years its image crisis has been at an all-time high since its inception.

It has faced substantial criticism for its lacklustre performance, often labelled as a "toothless tiger", and "silent spectator," and now regarded as ‘not even an ornamental body’, being overlooked by the judiciary and failing to fulfil its intended purpose.

A close analysis of NHRC's adherence to its statutory mandate, not to mention the Paris Principles, reveals a concerning trend – the number of suo motu cases taken up by the Commission nearly halved, with a reduction rate of 46.32% between 2012-16 and 2016-20.

This quite clearly does not signify a decrease in human rights violations but rather reflects the growing apathy of the Commission in recognising and addressing these violations.

“A status” for NHRC India?

Previously known as the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, GANHRI (or the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions), unites over 115 NHRIs worldwide. It offers guidance and assistance in advancing human rights across the globe. Among other functions, it also reviews and accredits NHRIs in their compliance with the Paris Principles through the Sub-Committee for Accreditation (SCA). The body works with the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), international and regional organisations, and civil society to review the performance of NHRIs.

Interestingly, since the inception of this accreditation process in 1999, NHRC India has managed to get an 'A' Status in this rigorous process. Despite facing criticism from civil society organisations, it was able to maintain its accreditation in 2006, 2011, and 2017. The initial accreditation is subject to review every five years or when there are changes in compliance with the Paris Principles, conducted by the SCA to GANHRI.

An "A status" indicates full compliance, whereas a "B status" denotes partial compliance with the principles of an NHRI.

Last May, for the second time since 2016, the NHRC's re-accreditation was postponed by the SCA. Of the 13 countries considered for accreditation other than India, the status of Costa Rica and Northern Ireland was also deferred.

During the first such deferment for India in 2016, GANHRI had flagged issues of political appointments, and lack of pluralism among staff as the chief reasons. Back then, only 20% of the NHRC staff were women, and there was no representation of women and members of marginalised social groups in the five-member Commission.

In 2017, India regained its A status, marking the first time in accreditation history that a country got back this status solely by proposing and committing to comply with the Paris Principles fully. Subsequently, an amendment to PHRA, 1993 was moved to address these concerns. However, the same was widely criticised for diluting the Commission’s autonomy by failing to address concerns over a politically handicapped appointment committee where three of five members are from the ruling party. The apprehension was that this arrangement could lead to the appointments of the government’s ‘yes-men’ to the organisation.

Controversy

Following the 2023 amendment, concerns were raised when former Supreme Court judge Arun Kumar Mishra was appointed as the chairperson of the NHRC, despite the then Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha disagreeing with the decision.

Mishra's appointment raised several concerns regarding the promotion and protection of human rights, particularly due to a trend in his judgements as an SC judge – noticeably the 2019 decision that resulted in the eviction of millions of tribals and forest dwellers.

The appointment faced criticism from 71 individuals and members of various human rights organisations, who sought accountability from the Modi-led selection committee. An analysis by The Wire indicated that Mishra had handled highly politically sensitive cases, prompting the landmark press conference by four senior judges of the SC in 2018. This raised concerns about the ruling party’s 'yes-man' theory highlighted by many during the 2019 amendments.

In the deferment last year, GANHRI raised concerns similar to those in 2016, and more. These included police officers' involvement in investigations of human rights violations, lack of cooperation with civil society, and inadequate action to protect marginalised groups. The subcommittee found that the process of application, screening, selection, and appointment lacked sufficient transparency and formalisation. It recommended that NHRC advocate with the government and parliamentarians for legislative amendments to enhance compliance with the Paris Principles.

What India and NHRC will miss out

However, little action seems to have been taken on the issues raised in the deferment decision. Instead, the NHRC is perceived to be making only token efforts, such as hosting civil society consultations with only eight representatives, members of its own core group, and the chairperson — excluding other commission members or heads of other national commissions who are deemed members of the Commission.

Without the accreditation, NHRC will be unable to represent India at the UN Human Rights Council, its subsidiary bodies and some General Assembly bodies and mechanisms. They will also not be eligible for full membership of GANHRI, including the right to vote and hold governance positions. Without concurrent legislative changes to empower the human rights body, its effectiveness will continue to be hampered. If the highest accreditation is granted, it would hardly be commensurate with the apathy the body has displayed, let alone its promotion and protection of human rights in the country.

Shrutika Pandey is a lawyer and researcher specialising in access to justice. She engages in developing strategies to advance the rights of undertrial prisoners through legal representation, research, and advocacy. The views expressed are personal