CANDID NOTES ON THE NHRC’S STATUS DEFERRAL

Print

THE CONTEXT: The National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) faces a continued deferral of its ‘A’ status by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) for another year. Despite lobbying efforts, the NHRC and the Indian government could not lift the deferral, although they avoided a downgrade to ‘B’ status. This situation raises concerns about the NHRC’s adherence to the Paris Principles and the implications of its leadership and operational practices.

ISSUES:

• Lack of Transparency and Independence: The GANHRI’s Sub Committee on Accreditation (SCA) cited the NHRC’s failure to operate independently of government interference. This includes concerns over the transparency in appointing members and the involvement of police officers in human rights investigations, which presents a conflict of interest.
• Diversity and Representation: The NHRC has been criticized for lacking gender and minority representation. The current composition includes only one woman and lacks adequate representation of India’s largest minority religions. This lack of pluralism does not reflect the diversity of Indian society.
• Adherence to Paris Principles: The deferral is linked to the belief that India has not been adhering to the Paris Principles, which set international benchmarks for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). These principles include mandates such as autonomy from the government, independence guaranteed by statute, pluralism, adequate resources, and adequate powers of investigation.
• Impact of Leadership and Governance: The leadership under Justice Arun Mishra, who has been criticized for his close ties to the government, has been a point of contention. His tenure and the amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act in 2019 have contributed to the NHRC’s decline in effectiveness and independence.
• International and Domestic Criticism: Human rights activists and former NHRC employees have expressed concerns over the NHRC’s deteriorating standards and failure to address significant human rights issues. GANHRI’s deferral decision, a peer-reviewed process, underscores these criticisms and reflects broader concerns about India’s human rights record.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Strengthening Independence and Pluralism: Ensure that the appointment process for NHRC members is transparent and inclusive, involving a broader range of stakeholders, including civil society organizations and representatives from marginalized communities. Amend the Protection of Human Rights Act to guarantee greater autonomy from the government and to ensure that political considerations do not influence appointments.
• Enhancing Accountability and Responsiveness: Implement regular independent audits and reviews of the NHRC’s performance, with findings made public to ensure transparency and accountability. Establish a robust public grievance mechanism that allows individuals and organizations to report human rights violations directly to the NHRC, with a commitment to timely and effective responses.
• Addressing Regional Human Rights Concerns: Set up regional offices in areas with significant human rights concerns, such as Jammu and Kashmir, to ensure better accessibility and responsiveness to local issues. Deploy dedicated teams to monitor and report on human rights conditions in these regions, ensuring that local issues are addressed promptly and effectively.
• Improving Collaboration with Civil Society: Develop formal partnership programs with civil society organizations to collaborate on human rights monitoring, reporting, and advocacy. Consult with human rights defenders, activists, and NGOs regularly to gather insights and feedback on human rights issues and the NHRC’s performance.
• Ensuring Adequate Resources and Capacity: Secure increased government funding to ensure that the NHRC has the necessary resources to carry out its mandate effectively. Invest in capacity-building programs for NHRC staff, including training on international human rights standards and best practices in human rights investigations.

THE CONCLUSION:

The NHRC’s ongoing deferral highlights significant issues regarding compliance with international human rights standards. The leadership and the government’s approach to human rights have come under scrutiny, necessitating introspection and potential reforms within the NHRC. The future of the NHRC’s status and effectiveness in promoting human rights in India remains uncertain.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in India can be most effective when its tasks are adequately supported by other mechanisms that ensure government accountability. In light of the above observation, assess the role of NHRC as an effective complement to the judiciary and other institutions in promoting and protecting human rights standards. 2014

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. Discuss the reasons behind the deferral of the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRCI) accreditation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). What are the implications of this deferral for India’s human rights record and its international standing?

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/candid-notes-on-the-nhrcs-status-deferral/article68175651.ece