On 13 May this year, a headline was published that read: 'UN-linked body defers NHRC India accreditation for second year in a row'. Beneath this was the line: 'The decision could now affect India's ability to vote at the Human Rights Council and some UNGA bodies'.

The NHRC is the National Human Rights Commission, and this column is about why its accreditation was deferred.

Last year, on 9 March 2023, a group of non-governmental organisations (including mine, Amnesty International India) wrote to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), the UN-linked body in question. We asked it to review India's accreditation status because the NHRC's lack of independence, pluralism, diversity and accountability were contrary to the United Nations principles for national institutions (popularly known as the 'Paris Principles').

Taking cognisance of our letter and other civil society submissions, the global body deferred the NHRC's re-accreditation by 12 months, considering its failure to effectively discharge its mandate — to respond to the escalating human rights violations in India.

The NHRC was also told to improve its processes and functions; but a year later this had not happened. This is what led to the second deferral of accreditation.

So what were the things contrary to the Paris Principles in the NHRC's functioning?

First was its lack of independence—both in the appointing of its functionaries and its functioning.

The chairperson and other members of the NHRC are appointed by the........

© National Herald