Misuse of NHRC name: Commission issues pan-India notices to States, UTs

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India, has taken suo motu cognizance of the alleged misuse of its name and logo by several Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) registered under deceptively similar titles, raising concerns over public trust, financial propriety and institutional credibility.

The apex statutory human rights body said it has been receiving complaints from individuals and organisations across the country regarding human rights violations. During scrutiny of these complaints, the Commission observed that certain NGOs have registered themselves under names closely resembling “National Human Rights Commission,” potentially misleading the public into believing they are officially linked to or authorised by the Commission.

NGO Using Similar Name Under Scanner

The issue came into sharper focus after the Commission identified an NGO registered as “National Human Rights Council (NHRC),” reportedly registered with the Government of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi in 2022.

According to the Commission, publicity materials circulated by the organisation claim registrations with various government entities, including NITI Aayog, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The material also mentions an association with the “Andhra Pradesh Human Rights Council Association.”

A visiting card linked to the organisation reportedly carries the designation “Venkatesh, State Chairman, Karnataka,” further adding to concerns about the use of titles that may imply official authority.

‘Deceptive Nomenclature’ Raises Red Flags

Taking serious note of the matter, the NHRC observed that the use of similar names and designations such as “Chairman” is misleading and capable of creating confusion among citizens and authorities alike.

The Commission emphasised that such deceptive nomenclature may falsely convey the impression that these entities are part of the statutory NHRC or have been formally recognised or authorised by it to handle human rights matters.

It warned that the continued use of such “illusory names” could erode public trust, lead to misuse of mandate, possible misappropriation of funds, and complicate the task of public authorities in distinguishing between a constitutional/statutory body like the NHRC and privately registered NGOs.

Earlier Warnings, Continued Violations

The Commission noted that it had previously raised concerns on various platforms regarding the misuse of its name and logo and had informed relevant authorities to take strict action against such organisations. However, despite these warnings, instances of misuse have continued to surface.

Notices Issued to All States and UTs

In response, the NHRC has issued notices to the Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police (DGPs) of all States and Union Territories, directing them to:

Identify NGOs and individuals misusing the name “National Human Rights Commission” or operating under deceptively similar names.

Initiate immediate legal action, including cancellation of registrations obtained in violation of norms.

Complete the necessary action within two weeks.

Sensitise registering authorities to remain vigilant and prevent similar cases in the future.

Separate Reports Sought from Karnataka and Delhi

In connection with the specific case of the “National Human Rights Council (NHRC),” the Commission has sought detailed action-taken reports within two weeks from:

The Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Karnataka; and

The Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

The NGO in question is reported to have its office in Karnataka while being registered in Delhi.

Protecting Institutional Integrity

The NHRC’s move underscores its intent to safeguard its statutory mandate and institutional identity from misuse. By taking suo motu cognizance and issuing nationwide directions, the Commission has signalled a stricter approach toward organisations that may attempt to exploit its name or create public confusion under the guise of human rights advocacy.

Further action will depend on reports submitted by state authorities within the stipulated timeframe.