London: India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) risks losing the ‘A’ grade it has held since 1999 if a committee of its international peers, which began meeting on Monday, holds to its recommendation of March 2025 that the commission be downgraded to ‘B’.The Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) said then that it was concerned the commission’s “independence and effectiveness” had not been sufficiently maintained.India’s case was taken up on Wednesday (November 11), according to sources.The sub-committee’s members are drawn from the national human rights institutions of Honduras, which chairs it, Kenya, the Philippines and Croatia. They are from each of the alliance’s four regions, covering Africa, the Americas, the Asia-Pacific and Europe. They assess institutions like the NHRC against the Paris Principles, the UN-endorsed standards for their independence and how they carry out their work.With the grade goes the right to speak in its own name at the UN Human Rights Council, as well as the commission’s vote within the alliance. Where only ‘A’ status institutions are voting members, a ‘B’ would also leave the commission an associate member of the Asia Pacific Forum alongside the commissions of Bangladesh and the Maldives. Pakistan and Nepal remain full members.The alliance’s rules give an institution one year from receipt of notice to submit written evidence that it continues to comply with the Paris Principles.The March 2025 recommendation did not take effect at once in view of these rules. The commission has kept its ‘A’ in the meantime, indicating full compliance with the Paris Principles. A ‘B’ points to partial compliance.The NHRC challenged the recommendation and, according to a note on the first page of the committee’s report, won the backing it needed from four members of the alliance’s Bureau. These were the institutions of Jordan, Ghana, Rwanda and Zimbabwe.However, the challenge was rejected in December 2025, and the review was postponed from March to November 2026, according to a joint submission that 13 rights organisations sent to the alliance.Conflict of interest: the NHRC’s ‘congenital deformity’Two of the concerns the committee set out in 2025 go back to section 11 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the law that governs the commission. That section says the Union government “shall make available” to the commission its secretary general, who is its chief executive, as well as its “police and investigative staff”.The committee wrote of its “continued concern of 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”.Addressing the NHRC on its foundation day in 2021, PM Modi had cautioned against selective interpretations of human rights and their use to diminish the country’s image. In Geneva in September 2024, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar described human rights rankings and ratings as “political games”.Speaking to the author on Monday, as the session opened, NHRC member Priyank Kanoongo questioned the state of religious freedom in some of the countries whose national human rights institutions sit on the alliance’s Bureau, while stressing that India remained a “democratic and secular nation”. “Those who don’t value democracy, we have nothing to do with what their accreditation says,” he said.The sub-committee was asked to respond on this matter, and a comment is awaited.How much a grade from Geneva weighs with this government is harder to read than its public dismissals suggest, because the sub-committee’s report on its March 2025 session records attempts by the Indian authorities, involving various foreign missions, to engage its members over the accreditation. The report gives no names or dates for those approaches, but it emphasised that the system “is a peer-review mechanism which requires NHRIs to maintain their independence”.The commission’s chairperson, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, soon after taking charge had objected to the reason the alliance gave for deferring the NHRC’s accreditation.This was on January 27, 2025, weeks before the session at which the committee recommended the downgrade. “If you have to assess an institution and give accreditation, you must assess its performance and not its DNA,” The New Indian Express reported him as saying.“If you assess the performance of NHRC and say that ‘it is not up to the standard, we do not give you accreditation’, I agree. But if you say that there is a congenital deformity in the way you are born, then I think it’s not about the accreditation of NHRC, but it is an accreditation of the government.”The committee’s March 2025 report voiced concern that the commission’s “independence and effectiveness” had not been sufficiently maintained. Its six concerns covered the commission’s staffing and membership, including how they are chosen, its response to human rights violations and its work with civil society.Like the committee, this three-part investigation examines both the commission’s makeup and its performance.It begins where the committee’s list does, with one strand of what chairperson Ramasubramanian called the DNA. This includes the officers the government supplies to the commission as its police investigators and its chief executive.The second part is a data investigation that holds the commission to the test he preferred, i.e its performance.The last part explores the tension over how the people who shape the commission (chairperson and members) are/have been appointed. That tension has played out the same way under Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi, with the selection panel going ahead over dissent from the opposition’s leaders on the panel. This part also profiles some of those who sit on the commission.NHRC chairperson Justice V. Ramasubramanian. Photo: X/@India_NHRC.Police officers persist in the commission’s investigative apparatusResponding to the committee’s consistent concern around police officers conducting human rights probes, the NHRC had told the committee that “the concern that such officers may fail to conduct impartial investigation was not only unfounded and unjustified but also far from reality”.The commission has also told the committee that only officers with “an exceptional performance record are posted to the NHRC”, adding that their “rich and varied experience” helps it analyse cases and forensic evidence.Given an opportunity in 2025 to provide more information on the efforts made to address the concern, the commission responded, in the committee’s record, that this had “never been an issue”.The NHRC told the committee that four steps had nonetheless been taken, which the report lists in these words:“Regulation 47 has been drafted to provide the NHRC with the opportunity to select other individuals who are not police officers to form part of investigations.A Rule has been proposed to the government to allow the NHRC to select individuals other than police officers for investigative functions and that ‘in principle’ approval has been given by government.Regulation 47 and the proposed Rule are expected to receive legislative approval.Police officers and other officials from government are requested and approved by the NHRC and they are not seconded without NHRC approval.”Eight months after the review, the Union home ministry’s recruitment rules of November 27, 2025 retained police deputation for the commission’s senior investigation posts.The requirement for police and investigative staff to work “under an officer not below the rank of a Director General of Police” comes from section 11 of the Act itself. Removing that requirement would take an amendment to the Act. The detailed eligibility conditions for the 17 posts are set out in the recruitment rules.Between December 2024 and January 2026, the ministry also conveyed approval for the appointment of three successive police officers as the commission’s Director General (Investigation). The second, Anand Swaroop, left the post to become Special Secretary (Internal Security) in the home ministry itself.§At the March 2025 review, as noted before, the NHRC said it had drafted regulation 47 and proposed a rule so that it could select people from outside the police to take part in investigations.The committee acknowledged “the steps taken by the NHRC” but wrote that these measures “do not address the primary concern of having police officers conduct human rights investigations”.That arrangement, it said, could affect the commission’s ability to investigate impartially as well as “the ability of victims to access human rights justice”.The drafted regulation and the proposed rule reached the committee after its deadline and “were not considered as part of the review process”. The Act itself, the report noted, “remains unamended”. It further called on the commission to press for section 11 to be amended and “to amend its investigative structure to remove the capacity of government to second police officers to act as investigative staff”.The committee cited the Paris Principles and its own General Observation 2.4, on the “Recruitment and retention of NHRI staff”. The observation says the need to operate free of government interference “should not be seen to limit the capacity of an NHRI to hire a public servant with the requisite skills and experience”. Recruitment for such posts, it says, should always be “open to all, clear, transparent, merit-based and at the sole discretion of the NHRI”.It adds that where an institution “is required to accept staff assigned to it by the government, and in particular where this includes those at the highest levels”, this “brings into question its capacity to function independently”.On two of the four assurances, the first and the third, The Wire has only the committee’s report to go on. It records the commission as saying that regulation 47 had been drafted, and that it and the proposed rule were expected to receive legislative approval. The report does not say what form that approval was to take, though it records the commission as sharing “proposals for amendment to the PHRA for consideration and approval by Parliament”.The Wire asked the commission on October 22, 2026 about regulation 47 and the selection of investigators from outside the police, but received no reply. If a response arrives, it will be added to this part.Under section 40 of the Act the Union government makes rules for the commission, while under section 40B the commission makes its own regulations. A regulation needs the government’s “previous approval” and is “subject to” the Act and the rules, so it cannot override either. Both must be laid before each House of Parliament after they are made, and can be modified or annulled within a set period if both Houses agree.The home ministry did not answer when asked on October 13, 2026 whether any change to section 11 was proposed. This section too will be updated if a response arrives.Assurances 2 and 4 can be read alongside documents the government has issued: its recruitment rules of November 27, 2025 and the home ministry’s orders conveying approval for the appointment of the investigation chiefs.The rules were made by the Union government under section 40 of the Act. They supersede the Commission’s earlier recruitment rules of 1996 and 2020 for the posts specified in the notification.For the director general, the deputy inspector general and senior superintendents, the deputy superintendents and the inspectors, they prescribe a single method of recruitment: deputation, meaning officers on temporary loan from their parent cadres or departments.The Director General (Investigation) is to be an officer of the Indian Police Service. The one Deputy Inspector General is to come from that service or Union police organisations, while the four Senior Superintendents of Police may also come from state and Union territory police organisations. For all three ranks the deputation is ordinarily not to exceed five years. The 11 Deputy Superintendents are to come from police organisations, ordinarily for up to three years. The 12 constable posts are likewise filled by deputation, from the Central Armed Police Forces or state and Union territory police organisations.Among these ranks, only the 25 inspector posts are open to government officers who are not from the police. Applicants must have “five years’ experience in vigilance or investigation or intelligence work”, among other requirements.Under the prescribed recruitment criteria, none of these posts is open to applicants outside government service.Neither the committee’s report nor the notification establishes whether the recruitment rules of November 2025 are the proposed rule the commission had mentioned. Those rules retain police deputation for the four senior-most investigative ranks, 17 posts in the schedule, continuing the arrangement the committee had called on the commission to end eight months earlier.The rules place selections for these posts before committees drawn from within the commission, chaired by the chairperson for the director general, by a member for the deputy inspector general, by the secretary general for the senior superintendents and by a joint secretary for the remaining ranks. Each committee selects from the eligible serving officers specified in the rules. Apart from the committee selecting the director general, each includes holders of police posts that the same rules fill by deputation.A notice of February 18, 2026 advertised three deputy superintendent posts and a circular of July 20, 2026 two, each time for officers of police organisations. The July circular lists 33 vacancies across 19 post categories and says the number of vacancies is “tentative and may vary”. It also seeks two constables “from amongst personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces or State Police Organisations”. Its five inspector vacancies are open to eligible officers of the Union or state governments or Union territory administrations, with a law degree desirable.The fourth assurance was that officers sent to the commission “are requested and approved by the NHRC and they are not seconded without NHRC approval”.The commission had made a similar claim in June 2011, saying appointments of senior officers were not made by the government “without consulting and seeking the Commission’s concurrence”.Three months before the March 2025 review, a home ministry memorandum of December 9, 2024 had conveyed the “approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet” for the appointment of R. Prasad Meena as Director General (Investigation). At the time, he was a special director general of the Border Security Force, with under eight months left before retirement.The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has only two members: Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah.On July 23, 2025, the ministry conveyed the same committee’s approval for Anand Swaroop, an officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre, to take over as the NHRC’s Director General (Investigation) on or after August 1, 2025.Less than six months after he took charge on August 12, 2025, a memorandum of January 15, 2026 conveyed approval for his appointment as Special Secretary (Internal Security) in the home ministry, at a pay level one above the director general’s.A second memorandum of the same date conveyed approval for Anupama Nilekar Chandra, a special director general of the Sashastra Seema Bal, to replace him until her retirement on March 31, 2031, or until further orders, whichever came earlier. Both January memoranda cite the “approval of the competent authority”.None of the three documents conveying approval for these appointments to the director general’s post records a request from the commission or its approval. Each refers to a communication from the Department of Personnel and Training and asks the NHRC to report the officer’s joining date.Chandra’s memorandum came seven weeks after the rules dated November 27, 2025, which specify a search-cum-selection committee chaired by the commission’s chairperson for the post. The memorandum makes no mention of that committee but lists the NHRC’s establishment office among those sent a copy.The same rules make the commission’s chairperson the appointing authority for Group A posts, which include the director general’s.At a lower rank, the ministry’s paperwork does refer to an earlier letter from the commission. A memorandum of June 8, 2026, conveying approval for the appointment of Manish Singh, a Gujarat-cadre officer then a director at the Bureau of Police Research and Development, as a senior superintendent of police in the NHRC, cites a letter from the commission dated April 27, 2026.For the deputy inspector general’s post, a home ministry letter of September 23, 2025 said the commission had proposed filling one vacancy on deputation and asked state governments to nominate eligible and willing Indian Police Service officers.Another government record describes the commission’s involvement more explicitly. A CRPF order dated August 12, 2026 records that the NHRC had written on June 9, 2026 to communicate Ravi Kumar Sikarwar’s selection as a deputy superintendent on three years’ deputation. “NHRC authority has requested to relieve the officer immediately,” it says. The order also records the home ministry’s approval for his release.Whether the commission requested or approved the three director general appointments is not answered by their memoranda. Neither is whether the selection committee met in Chandra’s case. The commission may have conveyed its view in separate correspondence that the memoranda do not cite, so the absence of those details does not establish that it was excluded.What these memoranda leave unclear is the commission’s own part in choosing its investigation chiefs, in a recruitment process the committee’s standard says should be “clear, transparent” and “at the sole discretion of the NHRI”.Also read: NHRC India’s Downgrade in Geneva Will be a Humiliation for World’s Largest Democracy – The WireDespite calls for independent recruitment, govt still supplies the secy generalThe other post section 11 leaves to the government is the secretary general, whom section 3(4) of the Act makes the NHRC’s chief executive. Until 2019, under that provision, he could exercise only such powers “as may be delegated to him by the Commission or the Chairperson”. Since an amendment that year he exercises “all administrative and financial powers”, subject to the chairperson’s control, except for the commission’s judicial functions and its power to make regulations.In November 2017, the committee again recommended that the post be filled “through an open, merit-based selection process”. In the meantime, it encouraged the commission to pursue policy or administrative measures giving it “greater control over the process, including by setting the selection criteria and by participating in the evaluation of candidates”.The report also recorded the commission’s argument that a senior officer on secondment “has wide knowledge of government functioning and standing among various levels of government”, and that it could reject candidates the government proposed. The commission, the report noted, had itself advocated inviting officers with less than a year left before retirement to be considered for the post.When the committee met in March 2025 the post was held by Bharat Lal, a retired Indian Forest Service officer appointed in June 2023. The committee acknowledged that he was “a retired civil servant and not a civil servant in post”.It also recorded the commission’s arguments that the secretary general “works under the full control of the NHRC”, and that its complaints work, which involves calling for reports from the Union and state governments, needs an officer of secretary rank.The committee noted that the commission had advocated amendments, but that the law still provided for the government to supply its secretary general.Restating its earlier concern that section 11 has “a real impact on the perceived independence” of the commission, it recommended that the NHRC keep pressing for amendments “to remove the capacity for the Government to make a senior civil servant available” for the post and to let it “independently recruit candidates”.Lal’s tenure had been extended for a year in June 2024. On April 18, 2025, four weeks after the committee’s session ended, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved a further year on contract beyond June 30, 2025, or until further orders, whichever came earlier.His successor, Piyush Goyal, an Indian Administrative Service officer of the 1994 batch, took charge on July 24, 2026 after serving as secretary in the Ministry of Mines.The post is therefore again held by a civil servant in service, as it was in May 2022, when the-then cooperation secretary, Devendra Kumar Singh, was named to it. That is the arrangement the committee said in 2025 “raises question about its capacity to function fully independently” when secondment reaches “those at the highest level”.Goyal’s official biography records earlier service as an additional secretary in the home ministry and as chief executive of the National Intelligence Grid, or NATGRID.The government describes NATGRID as an intelligence-sharing platform that connects databases, including immigration, banking, telecom and travel records, with authorised security and law enforcement agencies. It has been exempt from the Right to Information Act since June 2011, subject to the Act’s exception for information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations.The commission has not yet replied to the detailed queries raised over the appointment process as of the time this investigation went to print. It will be updated once received.The questions sent to the commission’s secretary general also covered section 11 and the way the secretary general is recruited. Neither the commission nor the home ministry had replied by the time of publication, and this report will be updated if they do.The sub-committee sits until November 20, 2026, and under the alliance’s statute a recommendation it makes is deemed accepted by the alliance’s Bureau unless the institution concerned challenges it successfully.The institution has 28 calendar days to challenge a recommendation after it is communicated. Once the Secretariat circulates the challenge material, at least one Bureau member must support it within 20 days.If that happens, the Secretariat notifies members, starting a second 20-day period in which the challenge must secure at least four supporters in total, from at least two regions.Each period is counted from the day after the relevant Secretariat communication is sent. If either threshold is missed, the recommendation is deemed accepted. If both are met, the Bureau considers the challenge at its next meeting.The second part of this investigation examines 15+ years of the commission’s own figures Saptarshi Das is a master’s candidate in public policy and administration at the London School of Economics and Political Science, on a departmental scholarship. He is an independent journalist, researching India’s state capacity and bureaucracy. X: @Das_LSE.