India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is on the verge of being downgraded by the United Nations’ accreditation agency due to concerns about its lack of independence and effectiveness in upholding international human rights standards. The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), a key body responsible for evaluating and accrediting national human rights institutions around the world, has recommended that India’s NHRC be downgraded from its current A-grade status to a B-grade. This recommendation stems from the body’s alleged failure to comply with the Paris Principles, which are international guidelines adopted by the United Nations that define the minimum standards for the independence, pluralism, and functionality of national human rights bodies.
According to GANHRI, India’s NHRC does not meet the full requirements set out in the Paris Principles, raising doubts about its capacity to operate independently and effectively. Despite the seriousness of the recommendation, the report clarified that the downgrade “does not take effect for a period of one year,” giving the Indian commission time to demonstrate its alignment with the Paris Principles. The UN body has asked India’s NHRC to submit evidence showing that it complies with these international benchmarks, which serve as a foundational guide for the functioning of credible national human rights organizations.
Sister Vanaja Jasphine, a prominent human rights activist, expressed deep concern about the implications of this proposed downgrade. “The downgrading is a major setback for us as a nation. It will undermine India’s image as a democratic nation committed to upholding human rights, particularly at global forums like the United Nations Human Rights Council,” she said. Speaking to UCA News on April 28, Jasphine warned that the consequences go beyond just symbolic embarrassment. According to her, the downgrade would mean that “India will be deprived of its right to speak at the Human Rights Council and its voting power in crucial global human rights discussions.”
She emphasized that such a development would be a blow to India’s reputation as a global defender of human rights. “It will also damage the reputation of India as a human rights defender,” she stated, adding that “a weak national rights body may no longer have the strength to hold state actors, police, or security forces accountable for human rights violations.”
Jasphine, who belongs to the religious order of the Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (ICM), also pointed out that the downgrade could result in marginal voices being silenced. “The voice of minorities — such as socially poor dalit people, indigenous people, and sexual minorities — may be left unheard,” she warned. According to her, the weakening of the NHRC’s credibility and authority could make it difficult for vulnerable populations to find institutional support or justice when their rights are violated.
She further cautioned that the downgrade might “increase the vulnerability of human rights defenders with little institutional support and they may be exposed to unsafe situations.” Based in Madurai in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, Jasphine also practices law and expressed hope that the Indian government would take corrective measures. She urged the NHRC to “rectify its shortcomings to regain its lost status,” noting the importance of such institutions in maintaining democratic values and accountability.
Adding to the chorus of concern, A. C. Michael, a Catholic community leader based in New Delhi, echoed Jasphine’s sentiments. He highlighted the long-standing and worsening issues of rights violations in the country. “Rights violations have always been a concern in India as the state and non-state actors continue to target the vulnerable sections in society,” Michael said. He added, “And of late, it has become worse.”
According to Michael, freedom of expression and the right to dissent have been increasingly stifled. “Currently, the situation is such that even holding a public protest against the government or speaking against those in power is restricted so much so that even the mainstream media too speaks the voice of those in power,” he remarked. This observation suggests that the NHRC’s failure to act independently is occurring against a broader backdrop of democratic erosion and shrinking civil liberties in the country.
Michael also criticized the NHRC’s perceived alignment with the government, stating that the body is supposed to function as a guardian of rights for all citizens. “The federal rights commission is meant to protect the human rights of everyone in the country, but unfortunately, instead of speaking for the citizens, it speaks for the government,” he said. He underlined the historic nature of GANHRI’s decision by noting, “It is the first time India is downgraded.”
The recommendation by GANHRI is not just a routine evaluation; it signals a loss of international credibility for India’s human rights architecture. Accreditation by GANHRI is important because it determines a country’s NHRC’s ability to engage fully with international human rights mechanisms, including participating in and influencing discussions at the UN Human Rights Council. An A-grade status signifies that a commission is fully compliant with the Paris Principles, while a B-grade indicates partial compliance. A downgrade to B-status would prevent India’s NHRC from voting or holding office in international human rights forums and would be viewed as a clear indictment of its operational independence and performance.
Although the downgrading will not take effect immediately, the clock is ticking for India’s NHRC to submit sufficient documentation and reforms to retain its A-grade. The pressure is now on the Indian authorities to address the structural weaknesses and credibility issues that prompted the global body to recommend the downgrade in the first place.
The NHRC’s fate will likely have wider ramifications beyond its standing in international forums. If it fails to act, the most vulnerable in Indian society—such as the dalits, tribals, sexual minorities, and marginalized groups—will find themselves with even fewer avenues for redress. Furthermore, human rights defenders and civil society activists may find themselves increasingly isolated and at risk in the absence of a strong national institution that is supposed to safeguard their rights and freedoms.
As the one-year grace period unfolds, the international community and domestic rights advocates will be closely watching whether India’s NHRC can reform itself to meet the high standards expected of such a crucial democratic institution. The future of human rights accountability in the country could well depend on the outcome.