GS Paper II

News Excerpt:

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is preparing to defend the government’s human rights processes at a meeting in Geneva this week, where a decision on whether India’s human rights body will retain its “A status” is expected to be made.

About the meeting:

• The meeting of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of the UN-recognised Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) worldwide will be held on May 1 as part of the five-year peer review for each member of the 114-member alliance.
• The NHRC is expected to attend the review meeting, online this year.

About accreditation status:

• Since being accredited in 1999, India has retained its A ranking in 2006 and 2011, while its status was deferred in 2016 and restored after a year.
• The decision over whether the NHRC is given an A or B rating would affect its ability to vote at the UN Human Rights Council and some UNGA bodies.

Claims made by Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA):

• According to a six-point submission by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) in March 2023, the NHRC has failed to create the conditions required to be able to operate independently of government interference.
• The NHRC’s ratings were put on hold in 2023 due to concerns about its composition procedure, the presence of police personnel in human rights investigations, and the lack of gender and minority representation.
• The committee slammed India for involving police officers in its investigative process, calling it a “conflict of interest.”
• The SCA also cited the lack of “pluralism” and “gender representation,” given the NHRC had only one woman in its top body, an institutional “ex-officio” representative of the National Commission for Women.
• In December 2023, the NHRC appointed another woman, Vijaya Bharathi Sayani.
• While the Chairperson of the National Commission for Minorities, Iqbal Singh Lalpura, is another ex-officio member, the SCA had also pointed out that the composition of the committee should reflect the “diversity of the society” it operated in, indicating the lack of any member representing India’s largest minority religions.
• The SCA has also recommended the removal of accreditation for Afghanistan, Myanmar, Niger and Russia, given developments in those countries.

Claims made by local civil society activists:

• Five of the 10 members of NHRC are politically affiliated with the ruling party.
• They include the Chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), the Chairperson of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, the Chairperson National Commission for Backward Classes, and the Chairperson National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

Claims made by human rights groups:

• In a letter to GANHRI dated March 26, 2024, nine human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and CIVICUS wrote a joint letter raising concerns about increasing restrictions on civil society and discrimination against minorities.
• They also cited various development and human rights indices that have downgraded India’s ratings in the past few years and UN Human Rights Council reports that the government has rejected.
• They urged GANHRI-SCA to amend the current ‘A’ rating of the NHRCI to accurately reflect its failure to comply with the Paris Principles and address the deteriorating human rights situation in India.

NHRC’s claim:

• The presence of government officials, including Secretary-General and CEO, NHRC, former Gujarat-cadre IAS officer Bharat Lal, adds to the “effectiveness” of the body.
• At present, of the two individual members of the NHRC, one member Rajiv Jain, is an IPS officer who was the Director of the Intelligence Bureau, while the Director-General of Investigation is former Special Director CBI, Ajay Bhatnagar.
• Officials point out that Mr. Jain “qualifies as a minority” as he belongs to the Jain community. All members are chosen through India’s legislative and constitutional processes, which also involve selection by leaders of the opposition.
• The MEA also reacted sharply to the U.S. State Department’s latest global report on “significant” human rights concerns in India, calling the report “biased” and reflecting a “poor understanding of India.
• They are confident of having its A status restored, it was not focused on “external certifications” of India’s human rights record. They also cited the “undue influence” of international civil society organisations that have been critical of India since 2014.

Conclusion:

The ongoing scrutiny surrounding India's human rights accreditation status with the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) highlights the importance of transparency, accountability, and adherence to international human rights standards. The outcome of the accreditation review will have implications for India's standing in the international community and its ability to participate in global human rights forums.