UN experts flag ‘heavy-handed’ response of police against peaceful protests in India

UN experts called the response “heavy-handed” because peaceful demonstrations reportedly met force, mass detention and digital restrictions. They said these measures threatened assembly, expression, liberty and personal security, especially because many protesters were students and supporters gathering non-violently.

The reported actions included lathi charges against unarmed students and preventing thousands from joining protests. More than 7,000 people, including journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and political party members, were detained in New Delhi. Phones were allegedly seized, and protest-related material was deleted. Some protesters reported injuries and ill-treatment.

Authorities also imposed broad restrictions before a Delhi demonstration. These included detentions, cancelled trains, the closure of 45 metro stations and suspended mobile internet in central Delhi. The experts urged the government to stop excessive force, rescind blanket assembly bans and avoid misuse of digital surveillance.

The experts were not presented as representatives of India or any other government. They were a group of special rapporteurs, independent experts and members of UN working groups appointed by the UN Human Rights Council.

Their role is to report on specific human-rights violations and country situations. The article says they serve in their individual capacities. They are independent of both governments and the United Nations itself. That independence distinguishes their assessment from an instruction issued by a national authority.

Their authority is therefore investigative and reporting-based, rather than direct police or judicial power. In this case, they flagged reported force, detentions, surveillance and restrictions on assembly, then urged India’s government to change course. They also reminded authorities that assembly limits must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate.

The reported scale was large: more than 7,000 people were detained in New Delhi. Those detained included young people, journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers and political party members. They were taken to remote detention centres, and most were released after 24 hours, including protest leaders.

The restrictions extended beyond arrests. Before an October 10 demonstration, police measures included detaining people, cancelling trains, closing 45 metro stations and suspending mobile internet in central Delhi. These steps could make it harder for people to reach protests, communicate and share information.

The UN experts viewed the measures alongside reported lathi charges, phone seizures and deletion of protest-related material. They urged the government to rescind blanket assembly bans and refrain from misusing digital surveillance. Their broader concern was that wide restrictions could suppress peaceful participation rather than address specific safety risks.

The protests focused on the Election Commission and a special intensive revision of voter rolls. Opposition parties, student groups and the Cockroach Janta Party campaign demanded Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. They raised concerns about how the commission was functioning and how the voter-roll revision was being handled.

The article links the latest protests to a September 23 investigation by The Indian Express. It reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected 14 times in 10 months to decisions connected with the revision. They said some decisions had been taken without their knowledge.

UN experts also referred to reported voter-roll deletions affecting 13 crore people, reportedly from Muslim, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. Earlier protests in June and July challenged alleged irregularities in competitive examinations. These disputes helped bring students and political groups into broader demonstrations.

Mass detention can separate protesters, journalists and rights defenders from their work and support networks. It can also discourage others from attending peaceful demonstrations. Phone seizures and digital surveillance may expose private communications, while deleting material can remove records of events, injuries or alleged abuses.

The article gives a concrete example. More than 7,000 people were taken to remote detention centres, including young people, journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders. Their phones were allegedly seized, and protest-related material was deleted. Most were released after 24 hours, but some protesters reported injuries and ill-treatment.

These actions can affect both participation and accountability. Journalists may lose reporting material, and human rights defenders may lose evidence or contact with witnesses. The UN experts therefore linked the reported crackdown to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, liberty and security of the person, and warned against misuse of digital surveillance.

A rights-respecting approach would treat peaceful assembly as something to facilitate, not automatically suppress. Authorities could speak with organisers, publish clear rules, agree routes and timings, and deploy officers trained in de-escalation. Any intervention should focus on specific unlawful conduct rather than everyone attending.

For example, officials could manage crowds around transport hubs while keeping reasonable access to demonstrations. They could use warnings and dialogue before arrests, ensure detention is individually justified, and protect journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders. They should not seize phones or delete protest material merely because it is connected to a demonstration.

These measures follow the UN experts’ central demands: stop excessive force, rescind blanket assembly bans and avoid misuse of digital surveillance. Restrictions should be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. That approach would address safety concerns while preserving peaceful participation and public accountability.

The right to peaceful assembly is the freedom to gather non-violently in public or other shared spaces to express views, make demands and participate in civic life. It matters because collective protest gives people, including students and political groups, a way to challenge government decisions and seek accountability.

The article describes students and supporters gathering peacefully over education decisions and voter-roll deletions. It also describes opposition parties and student groups protesting the Election Commission. Despite the non-violent nature of the assemblies, authorities reportedly used force, detained people and blocked access to demonstrations.

Restrictions must be lawful, necessary and proportionate because public safety limits should address a genuine, specific need without going further than required. The UN experts said restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and comply with India’s international legal obligations. Broad bans, excessive force or surveillance can undermine the freedom they are meant to regulate.