Joint Letter to GANHRI Regarding Review of the Accreditation Status of the National Human Rights Commission of India

November 26, 2024

Chairperson Maryam Abdullah Al Attiyah
Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI)
Geneva, Switzerland

Re: Review of the Accreditation Status of the National Human Rights Commission of India

Dear Chairperson,

We, the undersigned organizations, are writing to bring to your attention serious concerns regarding the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRCI) ahead of the 2025 review of its accreditation status by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA).

In March 2024, several signatories to this letter wrote to your office sharing their concerns about the functioning of the NHRCI.[1] In response to the concerns laid out in the letter and other civil society submissions, in June, GANHRI-SCA deferred the NHRCI’s re-accreditation by 12 months for a second consecutive year.[2]

The SCA noted that the majority of its recommendations, often repeated, remained unaddressed. The SCA underscored that in such cases where an NHRCI shows such lack of progress, it may “depending on the seriousness of the issues previously raised, interpret such lack of progress as an unwillingness to demonstrate efforts in implementing the SCA recommendation and as an indication of non-compliance with the Paris Principles.”[3] The SCA report said that it had deferred the NHRCI’s accreditation on grounds of failure to effectively discharge its mandate to respond to the escalating human rights violations in India, lack of pluralism in selection and appointments of its chairperson and other members, insufficient cooperation with human rights bodies, and concerns over its ability to function independent of government interference.[4]

GANHRI-SCA recommended that the NHRCI improve its processes and functions in line with the United Nations Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles).[5]

However, it is evident that both the NHRCI and the Indian government have yet again failed to implement the recommendations.

As the SCA prepares for the upcoming review, we call attention to the July 2024 report of the UN Human Rights Committee considering the periodic report of India to that body. In its findings on India’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee raised concerns about discrimination and violence against minority communities including religious minorities, Dalits, and tribal groups; the use of counter-terrorism legislation to restrict freedoms of association and expression; judicial harassment of and other forms of reprisals against human rights defenders; and other areas of apparent non-compliance.[6] The Committee also noted that the NHRCI had largely failed to implement the recommendations made by GANHRI, including the lack of diverse representation, poor engagement with civil society, and the involvement of police in investigations.[7]

Various independent UN human rights experts have repeatedly raised concerns over growing “attacks on minorities, media and civil society” in the country.[8] Over the last decade, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN human rights experts have also voiced concerns over the Indian government’s increased targeting of human rights defenders and critics of the government using abusive laws on foreign funding and counterterrorism.[9]

In this context, we strongly urge 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. We provide detailed reasons below.
 

Involvement of Police Officers in NHRCI Investigations

The Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993, empowers the Indian government to appoint police officers of the rank of Director General of Police or above as necessary for the efficient performance of the NHRCI.[10] In the 2017, 2023 and 2024 reviews, the SCA said it continued “to be concerned about the perceived or real conflict of interest in having police officers seconded from government engaged in investigations of human rights violations including those committed by police.” It noted that the secondment of police officers to act as investigative staff “may impact on their ability to conduct impartial investigations as well as the ability of victims to access human rights justice.”[11] The SCA recommended amendments to section 11 of the PHRA and to its investigative structure to remove the capacity of government to second police officers to act as investigative staff.[12]

However, the Indian government has not to date undertaken any such legislative amendments or commenced any process with a view to fulfilling the SCA’s recommendation, nor has it initiated any consultation on the same. On the contrary, the NHRCI on its website in positive terms calls attention to “multi-dimensional” functioning of the Investigation department, termed as “specialized,” but comprising solely of police officers.[13]

According to the NHRCI’s most recent data on human rights cases published on its website, 2,575 cases of deaths in custody (police and judicial) and during police encounters remain pending.[14] By its own accounting, of all the 14 cases in which the NHRCI recommended monetary relief in the month of September 2024, not a single case was related to death in police custody.[15]

What has become an emblematic case of police abuse, took place in October 2022 in Gujarat. There, a number of police officers used batons to beat several Muslim men after tying them to a pole for allegedly throwing stones at a Hindu festival celebration.[16] In videos shown and even praised on some pro-government television news networks, several uniformed police officers watched the flogging and beat the men, while a crowd of men and women cheered and applauded. The police ordered an inquiry only following social media criticism of the video recordings.[17] In October 2023 the Gujarat High Court called the public flogging “inhumane” and an “act against humanity,” and sentenced four police officials to 14 days in custody.[18] However, the NHRCI did not take cognizance of the matter.
 

Opacity and Lack of Pluralism in the Selection Criteria

The SCA has repeatedly raised concerns about the lack of diversity in the NHRCI and recommended a “pluralistic balance in its composition and staff” by ensuring the representation of a diverse Indian society including, but not limited to religious or ethnic minorities and equitable representation of women.[19]

In response, the Indian government expanded the eligibility criteria for a chairperson to include a person who has been a Supreme Court judge, but without adequate legislative consultation.[20] Earlier, only a person who had been the Chief Justice of India was eligible for the position of a chairperson. Similarly, despite the SCA’s recommendation to amend the PHRA, the legislation continues to empower the Indian government to recruit a civil servant with the rank of Secretary to the government for the role of Secretary General of the NHRCI.[21] This stands squarely in violation of the Paris Principles that are premised on independence from governmental undue influence or interference.

An analysis by the All-India Network of NGOs and Individuals of the recruitment for chairpersons between 2018 and 2023 in the other thematic commissions for protection of the rights of minorities, children, women, persons with disabilities and so-called backward classes, demonstrates that such recruitments continue to act as de-facto extensions for former government officials or members of parliament associated with the ruling political party.[22] This seriously undermines the ability of the commissions to function independently of government undue influence or interference.

In November 2023, the NHRCI appointed seven former officers of the Indian Police Service as special monitors.[23] One of the officers was accused of corruption in 2018 while working as Special Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India’s federal investigation agency.[24] The person has been given the responsibility to oversee the thematic areas of terrorism, counterinsurgency, communal riots, and violence.[25]

The SCA in its 2023 review also noted that three of the six positions in the NHRCI remain vacant.[26] Since then, the vacancies have increased. Since June 2024, five out of six positions, including the position of chairperson, have been vacant. The only remaining member has been appointed as the acting chairperson.[27]

The SCA’s 2024 report reiterated its previous assessment that the current composition of the membership of the NHRC with only one woman is not sufficient to meet the pluralism requirements of the Paris Principles. It added that this lack of pluralism was also reflected in the composition of the staff where approximately only 20 percent were women while 24 percent belonged to minority groups.[28]
 

Failure to Address Human Rights Violations

India has seen a worrying decline in respect for human rights over the last decade. The SCA has repeatedly called on the NHRCI to address all human rights violations and ensure consistent follow-up with state authorities.[29] The SCA’s 2024 report noted that the information provided by the NHRCI did “not demonstrate adequate efforts to address human rights violations at a systemic level, nor has the institution spoken out in a manner that promotes and protects all human rights.”[30]

Indian authorities have carried out an escalating crackdown on the media and civil society. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – led government’s discriminatory policies and anti-Muslim speeches by BJP leaders have incited or otherwise facilitated Hindu nationalist violence.[31] The authorities have failed to take adequate action against those responsible, fostering a culture of impunity that has fueled further abuses. At the same time, the authorities have often acted against victims of the violence, including through politically motivated prosecutions and unlawful demolitions of their properties.

Several BJP state governments have demolished the homes, businesses, and places of worship of Muslims without due process and carried out other unlawful practices. These demolitions are often carried out as apparent collective punishment against the Muslim community in response to communal clashes or dissent, and BJP officials have dubbed them “bulldozer justice.”[32]

In November, the Supreme Court ruled that such demolitions are illegal. The court also laid down a series of guidelines to ensure that due process is followed. Calling such actions “high-handed and arbitrary,” the court declared them unconstitutional and amounting to “collective punishment.”[33] The court also warned that violating these guidelines would amount to contempt of court and officials concerned will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property at their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.[34] However, the NHRCI has failed to respond to this abusive state practice.

The Indian government has shut down foreign funding for thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), particularly those that work on human rights, including the rights of persons from vulnerable communities, using the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).[35] Over 20,600 NGOs have lost their license to receive foreign funding in the last 10 years, many of them groups that have long promoted human rights and democracy.[36]

In February 2024, authorities cracked down on farmers holding peaceful protests outside New Delhi, including through use of excessive or otherwise unlawful force, internet shutdowns, and threats to revoke demonstrators’ passports and visas.[37]

The authorities are applying the abusive, overbroadly worded counterterrorism law, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), financial regulations, and other laws to silence journalists, human rights defenders, activists, and critics of the government.[38] This includes 16 prominent activists who promoted the rights of persons from India’s most marginalized communities, accusing them of inciting violence that occurred during a Dalit meeting in January 2018 in Bhima Koregaon in Maharashtra state.[39] Eight are still detained without trial and seven eventually were granted bail, while 84-year-old Stan Swamy, a prominent tribal rights activist, died in custody. The courts have repeatedly questioned the evidence against them.[40] According to reports by the US-based forensic firm Arsenal Consulting, malware was used to surveil and plant evidence on the computers of at least three accused in this case.[41]

Indian authorities have also been credibly accused of bias in investigations involving the arrests of activists in cases related to the February 2020 violence in Delhi following peaceful protests against the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act.[42] The police arrested 20 student leaders and activists, most of them Muslim, under the counterterrorism law. Various Indian courts have repeatedly denied bail appeals of several activists in this case, such as Umar Khalid and Gulfisha Fatima who have been detained for over four years.[43]In a few cases, where bail was granted, judges called the police investigations “shoddy” or “callous.”[44]

Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez has been arbitrarily detained since November 2021.[45]Indian authorities continue to unduly and unlawfully restrict the rights to free expression, peaceful assembly, and other basic rights in Jammu and Kashmir, five years after revoking the region’s special autonomous status.[46] There are growing restrictions on media, a number of journalists and human rights defenders have been arrested on spurious terrorism charges, and authorities regularly harass critics including through counterterrorism raids.

The NHRCI has not to our knowledge taken any concrete steps to respond to the situation of the human rights defenders in any of these cases or intervene in a timely manner despite various UN special rapporteurs calling on Indian authorities to release the activists.[47]

The case of human rights defender and academic GN Saibaba, who died in October 2024, demonstrates the repeated failure of the NHRCI to address the spurious and politically motivated prosecutions of human rights defenders.[48] Saibaba, who was confined to a wheelchair, spent nearly a decade in prison after being falsely implicated in terrorism charges. After being acquitted in March 2024, he said he was subjected to “inhumane treatment,” and denied proper medical care.[49] From the time of his arrest through the entire period of his detention, civil society groups and activists filed multiple complaints with the NHRCI, including regarding the violation of his right to bail and “inhumane treatment in jail, despite his disability.”[50]

But the NHRCI dismissed all the complaints, relying on reports from the prison saying it did not find evidence to support the claims. This is despite a July 2017 report by the NHRCI’s own Special Rapporteur, S. Jalaja, who said that Saibaba’s “physical and medical condition demands treatment at a well-equipped hospital” and recommended that an independent medical team assess his condition.[51] UN human rights experts also repeatedly called for his release, calling his detention “shameful.”[52] Civil society groups reported that prison conditions contributed to deterioration in Saibaba’s fragile health, leading to his death seven months after his release from prison.

The NHRCI has failed to take any meaningful and timely action on the ongoing ethnic violence in the northeast state of Manipur, which has killed over 200 people and displaced more than 60,000 since May 2023.[53]

Human rights defenders have also repeatedly raised concerns about the inordinate delays by the NHRCI to effectively address cases.[54]

The NHRCI continues to demonstrate unwillingness to meaningfully respond in cases of serious human rights violations, or address the deteriorating human rights violations in the country, and uphold accountability. The failure to create an independent NHRCI risks perpetuating impunity and hindering efforts toward ensuring that the Indian authorities respect and uphold human rights.

Therefore, taking into consideration the NHRCI’s failure to implement the SCA’s recommendations made in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017, 2023, and most recently in 2024, we strongly urge your office to evaluate the NHRCI’s rating carefully during the upcoming accreditation process.

Signed:

Amnesty International
Asia Democracy Network
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Asian Resource Foundation
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
CSW
Human Rights Watch
International Coalition against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED)
International Dalit Solidarity Network
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Service for Human Rights
South Asians for Human Rights
The Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions
The Human Rights Measurement Initiative
The International Commission of Jurists
World Organisation against Torture (OMCT)