A coalition of leading international and national human rights organizations has called upon the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) Bureau to accept the Sub-Committee on Accreditation’s (SCA) recommendation to downgrade the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRCI) from “A” to “B” status.
In a joint statement, the signatories—comprising Amnesty International, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Asian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI), All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National and State Human Rights Institutions (AiNNI), CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Front Line Defenders, Human Rights Watch, International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)—emphasized the need for the GANHRI Bureau to uphold the SCA’s April 2025 recommendation.
This appeal follows a series of consecutive deferrals in 2023 and 2024, along with an earlier deferral in 2016, before the NHRCI was granted “A” status in 2017. The organizations claim these delays indicate a decade-long pattern of persistent non-compliance with the Paris Principles governing the operations of national human rights institutions.
The statement highlights that despite multiple opportunities for reform, neither the Government of India nor the NHRCI has implemented the necessary institutional changes to ensure the commission’s independence, effectiveness, and credibility. Concerns raised by the SCA in 2011 and reiterated in subsequent years remain “substantially unaddressed.”
Following the SCA’s decision, the NHRCI contested the recommendation, receiving support from national human rights organizations in Jordan, Ghana, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe. The GANHRI Bureau is anticipated to discuss this challenge during its upcoming meeting in December.
Mary Aileen Diez-Bacalso, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA, remarked, “Upholding the downgrade is critical to protecting the integrity of the global accreditation system and ensuring long-overdue accountability. A reversal at this stage would set a deeply troubling precedent signaling that political pressures from powerful actors can outweigh principled, evidence-based assessments.”
Concerns have also been raised regarding the NHRCI’s reliance on police-staffed investigation teams, leading to “clear conflicts of interest.” Civil society testimonials indicate that the NHRCI routinely accepts reports from agencies, such as the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Central Bureau of Investigation, without independent verification. This is particularly concerning for cases involving human rights defenders charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, primarily handled by the NIA.
Additionally, the coalition criticizes the NHRCI for lacking “meaningful diversity” in leadership and staffing, with limited representation from women, Dalits, indigenous peoples, religious minorities, persons with disabilities, and LGBTIQ+ individuals. They further note the Commission’s heavy reliance on seconded government officials, which impedes its autonomy and pluralism.
The NHRCI has not publicly advertised leadership vacancies, and existing selection procedures remain opaque. Two positions have been unfilled for an extended period, with one vacancy persisting for over 4,000 days. There has been no advocacy for amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act despite SCA recommendations since 2011.
The NHRCI reportedly has not acted effectively in response to a “constricting” civic space marked by increased attacks on activists, journalists, and human rights defenders. The statement points to the Commission’s inaction regarding the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act or the UAPA, as well as its lack of intervention in cases of arbitrary detention.
Engagement with civil society is characterized as “inconsistent, selective,” and often excludes organizations addressing sensitive issues. The NHRCI has not convened discussions on essential legislative matters nor engaged with the National Platform of Human Rights Defenders as mandated by the Asia Pacific Forum’s Regional Action Plan.
Despite serious allegations of custodial torture and extrajudicial killings, the NHRCI has “rarely gone beyond recommending compensation,” and disciplinary actions have been recommended only in a few cases, with no prosecution suggested, thus perpetuating a culture of impunity.
The signatories assert that reversing the SCA’s recommendation would overlook documented concerns and risk normalizing violations of international standards. They emphasize that upholding the downgrade is essential to: 1) Reinforce accountability for the NHRCI and the Government of India; 2) Maintain the credibility of GANHRI’s accreditation system; 3) Encourage necessary institutional reforms; and 4) Ensure victims have access to justice and effective remedies.
The organizations express hope that a downgrade in accreditation will motivate both the Government of India and the NHRCI to undertake meaningful reforms to enhance independence, pluralism, transparency, and adherence to the Paris Principles. They remain committed to engaging constructively with GANHRI and the NHRCI to further human rights protection in India.
Tags: Global rights groups urge GANHRI to uphold recommendation downgrading India’s NHRC to “B” status Extract 5 SEO-friendly keywords as tags. Output only keywords, comma separated.
Hashtags: #Global #rights #groups #urge #GANHRI #uphold #recommendation #downgrading #Indias #NHRC #status
