Context-

The National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) was formally informed late last week that the deferral of its status would continue for another year. This decision was made by the sub-committee on accreditation (SCA) of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). While the SCA did not agree with the pleas of some leading international non-governmental organizations to downgrade the NHRC to category ‘B’, it also rejected India’s request to lift the deferral. This situation raises significant questions about the NHRC's adherence to international standards and its overall effectiveness in promoting and protecting human rights in India.

The Deferral and its Implications

●     Avoiding Downgrade : The NHRC’s chairperson, Justice Arun Mishra, a former Supreme Court of India judge, along with the Indian government, lobbied extensively to have the deferral removed. The continuation of the deferral is a relief in some respects, as it avoids the ignominy of a downgrade. However, this also leaves a cloud over the NHRC’s ‘A’ status, which is critical for its credibility and ability to participate fully in international human rights forums.

●     Lobbying Efforts : The NHRC and the Indian government were deeply involved in lobbying efforts to remove the deferral. This included behind-the-scenes activities by the government to support the NHRC’s position. Despite these efforts, the SCA’s decision to continue the deferral indicates persistent concerns about the NHRC’s compliance with international standards.

●     Justice Arun Mishra’s Tenure : Justice Mishra is set to retire in early June, and there is speculation about whether he will be reappointed by the new government formed after the general election in 2024. If he is not reappointed, he would be the first NHRC chairman to leave the organization under such a cloud, which could validate initial doubts about his appointment. His tenure and the current status of the NHRC invite scrutiny and raise questions about the institution’s direction and leadership.

NHRC’s Brochure and Its Implications

●     Human Rights 75 : A glimpse into Justice Mishra’s approach to human rights can be found in a brochure published by the NHRC, titled ‘Human Rights 75’. Released as part of the ‘Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav’ celebrations, this document attempts to trace the roots of human rights principles in ancient Indian civilization. It references texts like the Vedas and the Upanishads to highlight India’s historical commitment to spiritual and ethical values.

●     Controversial Reference to Manusmriti : The brochure controversially cites the Manusmriti, an ancient legal text, to illustrate principles of justice and fairness. This reference has sparked outrage among many historically disadvantaged communities in India who view the Manusmriti as a source of social discrimination and violence. This raises questions about the appropriateness of such references in an NHRC publication, which is supposed to uphold the values of the Indian Constitution, which stands in direct conflict with the Manusmriti’s basic postulates.

●     Clarification Needed : Given the backlash, it is essential for Justice Mishra or the NHRC to clarify whether the reference to the Manusmriti was an oversight or a reflection of a considered viewpoint. This clarification is necessary to align the NHRC’s public stance with the foundational values of the Indian Constitution and to ensure that it does not alienate significant sections of the population.

Adherence to the Paris Principles

●     Previous Accreditation and Current Deferral : In early 2017, the SCA had put the NHRC in the deferral category, but this was lifted after a review later that year, allowing India to retain its ‘A’ status. The NHRC had publicly acknowledged the importance of this status, emphasizing that it grants participation in GANHRI’s work, the Human Rights Council, and other UN mechanisms.

●     Importance of Paris Principles : The Paris Principles, adopted by the UN in 1993, provide the international benchmarks against which National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are accredited. These principles include criteria such as mandate and competence, autonomy from the government, independence guaranteed by a statute or constitution, pluralism, adequate resources, and sufficient powers of investigation.

●     Current Concerns : Despite the NHRC’s previous compliance with these principles, the ongoing deferral suggests that GANHRI’s SCA has continuing doubts about the NHRC’s adherence to these standards. The precise reasons for these doubts are not detailed, but they likely involve concerns about the NHRC’s independence, resources, and effectiveness in fulfilling its mandate.

Peer-Reviewed Evaluation

●     Objective Assessment : The GANHRI evaluation process is peer-reviewed, lending credibility to its findings. This process cannot be easily dismissed, even though the Indian government has frequently dismissed criticisms of its human rights record since 2019. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has been particularly vocal in defending India’s record, often pointing to deficiencies in the West to counter criticisms.

●     Diplomatic Sensitivity : While there is validity to some of the criticisms of the West for weaponizing human rights, the approach of the Indian government, particularly its abrasive diplomatic stance, may not always be effective. A more nuanced approach, using logic and reason rather than harsh language, might better serve India’s interests in addressing international concerns.

●     NHRC’s Approach to the SCA : It is unclear whether the NHRC adopted a similarly muscular approach in its dealings with the SCA. If it did, the continuation of the deferral indicates that this approach was not successful. This situation calls for introspection within the NHRC and the Indian government regarding their strategies and their genuine commitment to upholding human rights principles.

Government Attitude and NHRC’s Introspection

●     Appointments and Vacancies : The government’s attitude towards the NHRC is reflected in the nature of appointments to the commission and the persistent vacancies within the body. These factors contribute to doubts about the NHRC’s independence and effectiveness. The process and criteria for appointing members to the NHRC need to be transparent and merit-based to ensure the body’s credibility.

●     Need for Introspection : The NHRC itself must engage in serious introspection. It needs to critically assess its operations, the adequacy of its resources, and its ability to function independently from governmental influence. Addressing these issues is crucial for the NHRC to regain its full accreditation and effectively fulfill its mandate.

Conclusion

The continuing deferral of the NHRC’s status by GANHRI underscores significant concerns about the institution’s adherence to international human rights standards. While the NHRC and the Indian government have managed to avoid a downgrade, the situation demands a thorough examination of the NHRC’s structure, leadership, and operations. The reference to the Manusmriti in the NHRC’s brochure further complicates its position, highlighting the need for careful consideration of how historical texts are interpreted and presented in the context of modern human rights principles. Moving forward, both the NHRC and the government must address the underlying issues to restore confidence in India’s commitment to upholding human rights.

Source- The Hindu