National Human Rights Commission: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions accreditation
Denied to India: 2023, 2024
Khadija Khan, May 21, 2024: The Indian Express
What are the Paris Principles and the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions? How does not having GANHRI accreditation affect the National Human Rights Commission?
Without accreditation from the Geneva-based Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), NHRC cannot represent India or vote at the UN Human Rights Council (formerly United Nations Commission on Human Rights).
The delay in accreditation can also been cited to raise questions about the independence, competence, and fairness of the NHRC. The NHRC, which was established on October 12, 1993 after Parliament enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), is currently chaired by former Supreme Court judge Arun Mishra.
What is the accrediting agency?
GANHRI, which represents about 120 national human rights institutions, is responsible for reviewing and accrediting these institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles every five years.
GANHRI acts through its Subcommittee on Accreditation (SCA), which categorises member NHRIs into two groups, ‘A’ and ‘B’. As of November 29, 2023, 120 NHRIs were accredited by GANHRI, 88 of which were given ‘A’ rank, indicating full compliance with the Paris Principles; the remaining 32 were put under ‘B’, indicating partial compliance.
And what are the Paris Principles?
The Paris Principles, formally Principles Relating to the Status of National Human Rights Institutions, which were adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 20, 1993, set out minimum standards that NHRIs must meet in order to be considered credible and to operate effectively.
The Paris Principles lay down six main criteria to determine which NHRIs are functioning effectively, and would receive accreditation from GANHRI.
They are (i) broad mandate based on universal human rights norms and standards; (ii) autonomy from the government; (iii) independence guaranteed by the statute or Constitution; (iv) pluralism, including membership that broadly reflects their society; (v) adequate resources; and (vi) adequate powers of investigation.
These Principles also say that NHRIs should be equipped to receive complaints and cases brought by individuals, third parties, NGOs, trade unions, or other organisations representative of professionals such as lawyers and journalists.
What happens if India loses accreditation?
NHRIs with ‘A’ status can participate in the UN Human Rights Council, its subsidiary bodies, and some UNGA bodies and mechanisms. They are also eligible for full membership of GANHRI, which includes the right to vote and hold governance positions.
NHRIs accredited with ‘B’ status can participate in GANHRI meetings, but cannot vote nor hold governance positions.
Unless India is accredited, the NHRC can’t represent the country at the UN Human Rights Council, or vote or hold governance positions. India’s review has been deferred, with no final decision yet.
Why has India’s accreditation been put on hold?
The decision was taken after an SCA meeting held on May 1 at the United Nations Palais des Nations in Geneva. The SCA has such sessions twice a year, and receives detailed briefings on each country. Subsequently, a pre-session is held to ascertain issues for consideration, followed by an interview with each country’s human rights institution.
The May 1 meeting was chaired by New Zealand. South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Spain were among the countries that participated.
The committee is yet to release its report. However, last year’s report listed the areas where the NHRC was seen as not properly adhering to the Paris Principles. These included a lack of transparency in NHRC appointments, conflict of interest caused by the appointment of police to oversee investigations, and no minority or female representation on the panel.
Also, on March 26, nine human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, jointly wrote to GANHRI expressing concern about India’s human rights institutions. “…The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, [has] raised concerns about the increasing restrictions on the civic space and discrimination against minorities in India ahead of the country’s General Elections,” the letter said. These concerns were also raised by UN human rights experts who drew attention to “attacks on minorities, media and civil society” in India, it said.
The letter urged GANHRI-SCA to amend the current ‘A’ rating of the NHRC.
What is India’s record of accreditation with GANHRI?
The NHRC was established in 1993, and was accredited for the first time in 1999. It got ‘A’ rank in 2006, and retained it in 2011. In 2016, accreditation was deferred due to reasons that included the appointment of political representatives, and the failure to ensure gender balance and pluralism in NHRC staff, but the SCA ultimately gave NHRC ‘A’ status in 2017.
Last year, the SCA withheld India’s accreditation again, and gave six reasons for it, including that the NHRC couldn’t create conditions for operating without government interference, that there were too many government officials and individuals affiliated with the ruling party in the NHRC.
