Consider the following statements about Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) : 1. It works in accordance with UN Paris Principle. 2. Fully compliant and partially compliant members are accredited as ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively. 3. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India has been accredited/ classified under ‘A’ in the year 2025. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
- (a)1 and 2 only
- (b)2 and 3 only
- (c)1, 2 and 3
- (d)1 only
Answer
Why
Correct — A, (a) 1 and 2 only. The first two statements describe how GANHRI works and both hold; the third describes what happened to India's Commission in 2025, and that is where the item turns.
Statement 1 — CORRECT. GANHRI is the global network of National Human Rights Institutions, and the standard it applies is the Paris Principles — the minimum requirements of independence, a broad mandate, pluralism, adequate resources and powers of investigation, endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993. Every accreditation decision is a finding on compliance with those Principles. The booklet prints 'Principle' in the singular; the instrument is a set of principles, and that is a wording slip rather than a factual one.
Statement 2 — CORRECT, and it can be quoted. GANHRI's Sub-Committee on Accreditation states its own classifications in these words: 'A: Fully compliant with the Paris Principles; B: Partially compliant with the Paris Principles.' The practical difference is real — an A-status institution has independent speaking rights before UN human rights bodies and full GANHRI membership with the right to vote and hold office, while a B-status institution may take part but cannot vote or hold governance positions.
Statement 3 — INCORRECT. In 2025 the Sub-Committee did not accredit India's National Human Rights Commission under 'A'. At its 45th session, held in March 2025, it recommended THE OPPOSITE: 'The SCA recommends that the NHRC be downgraded to "B" status.' The Commission's re-accreditation had already been deferred in 2023 and again in 2024 before that recommendation came.
One honest complication belongs in the answer rather than outside it. The same report records that under Article 18.1 of the GANHRI Statute a downgrade does not take effect for a year, and that 'the NHRC maintains A status until the SCA 47th session slated for 2026' — time in which it may file further evidence of compliance. So the Commission still HELD the A rating it had carried since its earlier re-accreditation. What statement 3 claims is different: that it 'has been accredited/classified under A in the year 2025'. No 2025 decision placed it in A; the 2025 decision proposed to take it out. On that reading statement 3 fails, and the answer is 1 and 2 only.
Why the others are wrong
- (b)2 and 3 only — Statement 2 is right, but this option drops statement 1 and keeps statement 3. Dropping statement 1 has no basis at all — the Paris Principles are the very standard GANHRI accredits against, so an option that treats that as false cannot be correct whatever one makes of the 2025 decision.
- (c)1, 2 and 3 — This is the defensible rival, and the ground for it should be stated fairly: because a downgrade recommendation does not take effect for a year, India's Commission continued to hold A status through 2025, and a reader who takes statement 3 to mean 'was in the A category during 2025' can call it true. It is rejected because the statement says the Commission 'has been accredited/classified under A in the year 2025', which points at an accreditation decision taken in that year — and the decision taken in that year was a recommendation to downgrade it to B. Between the two readings, the one that makes the statement report the year's actual accreditation outcome is the better fit.
- (d)1 only — Correct to reject statement 3, but it also rejects statement 2, which can be quoted verbatim from the Sub-Committee's own report: A is full compliance with the Paris Principles and B is partial compliance. A candidate lands here by being sure of the general framework, unsure whether the A and B letters mean exactly what they appear to mean, and choosing the narrowest option available.
Concept
GANHRI — the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions — is the association through which national commissions and ombuds institutions from Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific and Europe review one another. Its Sub-Committee on Accreditation is a peer body: representatives of NHRIs from the four regions examine an institution's law, appointments process, funding, independence and record against the Paris Principles, and recommend A (fully compliant) or B (partially compliant). Accreditation is not permanent — an institution is re-accredited every five years, and a review can be started earlier if circumstances change. The stake is access: A-status institutions can address UN human rights bodies in their own right and vote within GANHRI; B-status institutions cannot.
This is a current-affairs item wearing an institutional costume. Statements 1 and 2 are stable facts a candidate can prepare; statement 3 is a dated claim that has to be checked against what actually happened that year. EPFO papers use exactly this construction — two textbook statements plus one recent development — because it separates candidates who read the news from those who recognise the acronym. Note also the standing trap around India's Commission: it is a STATUTORY body under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, not a constitutional one.
Timing is what makes this item hard rather than the institution. An accreditation decision, an index rank or a membership term can change between the year a candidate studies and the year the paper is set, and this statement is dated to the year of the sitting itself. The safe method for such statements is to ask what DECISION was taken in the year named, not what status was in force during it — the two can differ, and here they do, because a downgrade recommendation carries a year's grace before it operates. Candidates who keep a dated list of India's international ratings, with the month of each decision against it, answer this in seconds.
Key facts
- GANHRI accredits National Human Rights Institutions against the Paris Principles, endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1993.
- Its Sub-Committee on Accreditation uses two classifications — A: fully compliant with the Paris Principles; B: partially compliant.
- A-status institutions have independent participation rights before UN human rights bodies and may vote and hold office in GANHRI; B-status institutions may participate but not vote or hold governance positions.
- Re-accreditation is required every five years, and a special review may be opened when circumstances change.
- At its 45th session in March 2025 the Sub-Committee recommended that India's National Human Rights Commission be downgraded to 'B' status.
- Under Article 18.1 of the GANHRI Statute a downgrade takes effect only after one year; the same report noted that the Commission maintains A status until the Sub-Committee's 47th session in 2026.
- India's Commission had its re-accreditation deferred in 2023 and again in 2024 before that recommendation.
- The National Human Rights Commission of India is a statutory body created by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Study next
Common traps
- Treating an institution's continuing status as proof of what a given year's decision said — a downgrade recommendation and a lapse of time can coexist.
- Assuming an international accreditation is permanent; it is periodic and reviewable.
- Calling the NHRC a constitutional body.
- Rejecting a statement over a wording slip — 'UN Paris Principle' in the singular is loose, but the substance of the statement is right.
EPFO's current-affairs statements cluster around bodies India belongs to and ratings India receives — accreditation grades, index ranks, membership terms. Prepare each as three facts: what the body does, what the grades mean, and what the most recent decision about India was, with its year. That is precisely the three-statement structure the examiner then builds.
Related PYQs
EPFO_EOAO_2023_Q91Which one of the following is not a constitutional body in India ?
- (a) National Human Rights Commission
- (b) National Commission for Scheduled Tribes
- (c) National Commission for Backward Classes
- (d) National Commission for Scheduled Castes
Answer(a) National Human Rights Commission
The companion item on the same Commission from the domestic side — which of four national commissions is not a constitutional body, where the NHRC is the statutory one.
Practice
- practice — not a real PYQ
Under the accreditation system of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, 'B' status denotes which one among the following ?
- (a)Full compliance with the Paris Principles
- (b)Partial compliance with the Paris Principles
- (c)Observer status without any compliance assessment
- (d)Suspension of membership
Answer(b) Partial compliance with the Paris Principles
- practice — not a real PYQ
The National Human Rights Commission of India owes its existence to which one among the following ?
- (a)A provision of the Constitution of India
- (b)An order of the Supreme Court of India
- (c)The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
- (d)A resolution of the United Nations General Assembly
Answer(c) The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993