NHRC failing to ‘effectively address’ human rights violations: NGO groups tell UN-linked body

In a joint submission to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions’ (GANHRI’s) Sub Committee on Accreditation (SCA), two civil society groups — All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with National and State Human Rights Institutions (AiNNI) and Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI) —  have said that the  National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC’s) accreditation, deferred in  2016, 2023, and 2024, fails to find space on its website.

By Rajiv Shah

In their submission to the top global body which coordinates the relationship between NHRIs and the United Nations human rights system, AiNNI and ANNI said, the accreditation status of NHRC “has not been updated” since 2017, and as of September 21, 2024, the “website falsely states that the NHRC has retained its ‘A’ accreditation status from SCA for four consecutive five-year terms.” They added, such omission diminishes “civil society’s trust” in NHRC, tarnishing its reputation.

Both AiNNI and ANNI have been collaborating with SCA for more than a decade, claiming,  they collectively represent civil society organizations in India with the aim of highlighting “pivotal issues and concerns” regarding NHRC’s operations.

The report said, between October 1, 2023, and October 1, 2024, the condition of  NHRC has further deteriorated. “There are ongoing vacancies at all levels, especially among the commission members. Following the resignation of former chairperson Justice Arun Mishra in May 2024,  NHRC has been functioning with only one member, currently serving as acting chairperson.”

Worst, the report complained, “Amidst growing concerns from legal professionals, civil society, academia, and the media regarding the passage of laws that compromise privacy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and fair trial rights, NHRC has been either unwilling or unable to defend civil liberties or to act on behalf of individuals and communities experiencing rights violations.”

It underlined, “The state’s failure to respond to serious crimes, including rape, lynchings, and custodial violence—coupled with reports of alleged extrajudicial killings and illegal demolitions—has led to public protests, leaving citizens more vulnerable to state retribution.”

Yet, “NHRC has not fulfilled its mandate despite civil society’s offers of cooperation to develop a strategic plan to implement SCA’s repeated recommendations.”

Pointing out that these and other facts were submitted to SCA even on October 1, 2023,  raising concern over restrictions on civic space, reprisals against human rights defenders (HRDs) in India, and NHRC’s failure to effectively address urgent human rights violations, AiNNI-ANNI said, in May 2024, there were third-party submissions on “serious human rights violations against ethnic and religious minorities, including hate speech and violence.”

All this together led SCA to frequently express concern about NHRC’s “lack of adequate information on addressing the systemic nature of these violations”,  recommending to the Government of India and NHRC regarding “organizational composition and pluralism, the selection and appointment of the NHRC chairperson and members, senior staff appointments (including practices of government secondment), engagement with civil society, and complaints management.”

Yet, said the report, “Despite repeated recommendations from SCA, both the Government of India and NHRC have largely failed to implement almost all of them.” In fact, although NHRC “publicly claims to have several thematic core groups, including one focused on NGOs and HRDs, it has never presented the recommendations from SCA for discussion in any of these meetings. Consequently, these recommendations remain unknown to members of Parliament and political party leaders.”

The report wondered,  if NHRC has formally communicated SCA recommendations to the chairpersons of various national commissions, including the National Commission for Women, the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, and the National Commission for Backward Classes, among others.

According to the report, SCA had also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest due to police officers’ involvement in investigating human rights violations, particularly those committed by police, warning, having police officers as investigative staff “could compromise the impartiality of investigations and affect victims’ access to justice.”

SCA even “recommended that the NHRC advocate for an amendment to Section 11 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to reform its investigative structure and prohibit the secondment of police officers as investigative staff.” Yet, the report regretted, “NHRC’s investigative team remains entirely made up of police officers on deputation.”

The report said, this is happening despite SCA having sought inclusion of non-police personnel with expertise in areas such as forensic science, senior legal expertise, and experienced human rights investigators who possess knowledge of crucial criminal procedures and special laws relevant to human rights.

Also regretting that “the Government of India provides a civil servant at the level of secretary to serve as the secretary general of NHRC”, the report called this is in violation of “a fundamental requirement of the Paris Principles for an NHRI to function independently of governmental interference.”

Especially taking strong exception to current secretary general, Bharat Lal (photo), who took charge in June 2023, the report said, “His appointment was renewed in June 2024, just before his term’s original expiration in July 2024. This situation underscores a lack of adherence to SCA recommendations, as vacancies for the role of secretary general are not publicly announced, nor is the selection process advertised.”

The report said,  “Bharat Lal’s previous roles included working with Prime Minister Narendra Modi since 2001 in projects related to water and sanitation in Gujarat and being part of the core team responsible for managing the Covid-19 pandemic since March 2020. While these roles are commendable, they do not indicate a familiarity with human rights issues.”

 Coming to the composition of  NHRC, the report says, it should consist of a chairperson and five members. “The chairperson must be someone who has served as Chief Justice of India or as a Judge of the Supreme Court, one member must be a current or former Supreme Court Judge, another must be a former Chief Justice of a High Court, and the remaining three members (at least one of whom must be a woman) should have knowledge of or practical experience in human rights matters.”

Yet, NHRC’s current membership “fails to meet the pluralistic representation requirements outlined in the Paris Principles… To date, only one woman, appointed on December 28, 2023, fills a vacancy for members with expertise in human rights. This appointment followed a gap of 633 days after the departure of the previous female member. As the sole member in a six-member NHRC, she has assumed the role of acting chairperson.”

Coming to selection and appointment of top NHRC office bearers, the report said, according to Section 4 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the chairperson and members of the NHRC are appointed by the President of India based on recommendations from an appointment committee that includes the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of the People, the Minister for Human Affairs, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha, and deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.

Yet, “The current selection and appointment process of NHRC does not promote broad consultation or participation, nor does it maximize the diverse candidate pool.” Not are civil society organizations “formally involved in the selection process.”

Referring to serious human rights violations against ethnic and religious minorities involving hate speech, violence, and discrimination, the report points to how in “the Elgar Parishad Case, also known as the Bhima Koregaon case, NHRC did not intervene on behalf of numerous well-known HRDs, including Sudha Bharadwaj, Anand Teltumbde, Gautham Navlakha, and Vernon Gonsalves, opting not to utilize its intervention powers.”

Then, human rights defender Khurram Parvez from Jammu and Kashmir has been detained since November 22, 2021, under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). But despite “numerous complaints lodged with NHRC regarding this matter, there has been no NHRC initiative to visit him in detention, despite international attention from UN rapporteurs and civil society organizations advocating.

The report also referred to other instances where NHRC has not taken “proactive steps” to implement critical SCA recommendations aimed at enhancing human rights protections:  India ranking 159th out of 180 on the Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF); police actions against journalists associated with Newsclick;  police crackdown on farmers’ peaceful protests; police crackdown on  Damkondawahi Bachao Sangharsh Samiti’s peaceful protest in support of Madia-Gond Adivasis opposing corporate mining, and so on.

Courtesy : Counterview

Note: This news is originally published in counterview.com and was used solely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes exclusively for Human Rights