'Human rights not tool for political pressure': India on UN criticism over protests

India rejected what it viewed as an unfair portrayal of the country over the protests. It said human rights should not be used for political pressure or selective targeting. The government argued that allegations and incomplete statistics should not be turned into a negative characterisation of India, the world’s largest democracy.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, deputy secretary Barkha Tamrakar said India engages with international human rights mechanisms. She said that engagement should rely on dialogue, consultation, cooperation, transparency and non-selectivity. India also asked delegations to cite reports faithfully and not treat a humanitarian communication as a final verdict.

The response came after more than 20 UN experts raised concerns about police conduct in New Delhi. India’s position signals that it accepts international engagement, but disputes what it considers selective or unsupported criticism. The UN experts, meanwhile, called for investigations, accountability and protection of peaceful assembly rights.

The UN experts alleged a heavy-handed response to peaceful youth-led demonstrations in New Delhi. They said law enforcement used force against unarmed students, detained people arbitrarily and imposed broad limits on public gatherings. Their concerns extended beyond protesters to journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers and political party members.

According to the experts’ statement, more than 7,000 people were recently detained and taken to detention centres farther from New Delhi. Their phones were allegedly seized, and protest-related material was reportedly deleted. Most were released after 24 hours, including protest leaders. The statement also cited injuries, ill-treatment, alleged sexual violence and other gender-based abuse.

These claims remain allegations raised by UN experts, not findings described as final judgments in the article. The experts urged Indian authorities to stop excessive force and conduct an independent, impartial and thorough investigation. They also sought accountability, justice and reparations for victims.

The reported scale of the events is large in two different ways. More than 7,000 people were reportedly detained in New Delhi after the protests. Separately, UN experts referred to reports that voter-roll deletions affected 130 million individuals. Those reportedly affected included Muslim, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities.

The detention figure covered young people, journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers and political party members. The statement said detainees were taken to detention centres farther away, and most were released after 24 hours. It also alleged that phones were seized and protest-related material was deleted. The 130 million figure relates to reported voter-roll deletions, not the number detained.

Both figures help explain why the protests drew international attention. Detentions affect people’s ability to organize and speak publicly. Voter-roll deletions can raise concerns about political participation, especially for communities identified in the reports. The article does not provide further verification or the final status of the deletions.

The right to peaceful assembly is the ability to gather with others without violence to express opinions, raise demands or oppose public decisions. It gives people a public voice outside elections and formal institutions. During protests, it allows citizens to show the strength of shared concerns and draw attention to issues that may otherwise be ignored.

In this case, UN experts said students and supporters gathered peacefully over education decisions and reported voter-roll deletions. They alleged that police used force against unarmed students and imposed broad restrictions on gatherings. The experts said any limits must be lawful, pursue a legitimate objective, and be necessary and proportionate.

Protecting peaceful assembly does not mean every act during a demonstration is automatically lawful. It means authorities must distinguish peaceful participation from violence and respond fairly. The experts urged India to lift blanket restrictions, stop excessive force and investigate alleged abuses. How authorities respond can shape public trust and future civic participation.

Section 163 of India’s Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, or BNSS, is generally understood as a provision allowing an executive magistrate to issue urgent orders to prevent danger, obstruction, disturbance or harm to public safety. This explanation uses established legal background because the article does not define the section itself. Such orders can restrict conduct or gatherings for a stated public-order purpose.

The UN experts said authorities reportedly used Section 163 to impose broad restrictions on public gatherings. They also linked the reported measures to suspended public transportation and internet shutdowns. The experts argued that restrictions on peaceful assembly must have a lawful basis, pursue a legitimate objective, and remain necessary and proportionate.

The central issue is not simply whether a legal provision exists, but how widely and for how long it is applied. Broad orders can affect peaceful protesters and ordinary residents alike. The experts urged authorities to lift blanket restrictions and refrain from misuse of digital surveillance, biometric monitoring and internet disruptions.

Mass detentions, internet shutdowns and broad limits on gatherings can quickly change daily life. Protesters may lose the ability to meet, communicate or organize. Journalists and supporters may struggle to report events. Transport suspensions can prevent people from reaching work, school or demonstrations. These measures can also make it harder for the public to see what is happening.

The article describes allegations that more than 7,000 people were detained, phones were seized and protest-related material was deleted. It also cites reported internet shutdowns, suspended public transportation and restrictions on gatherings. Most detainees were reportedly released after 24 hours, but the experts also cited injuries, ill-treatment and alleged gender-based abuse.

The longer-term effects depend on whether restrictions are lawful, necessary and proportionate, and whether alleged abuses are investigated. The UN experts called for an independent inquiry, accountability, justice and reparations. Such steps could clarify responsibility and help restore confidence in public institutions. The article does not report the outcome of any investigation.

UN human rights mechanisms examine alleged abuses by collecting information, seeking responses from authorities and communicating concerns through reports or statements. Independent experts may compare allegations with applicable human rights standards and ask governments to investigate or remedy violations. The article describes special-procedure experts raising concerns, not issuing a final court judgment.

Here, more than 20 experts in Geneva cited reports of force, detentions, injuries, ill-treatment, restrictions and digital disruptions. They urged an independent, impartial and thorough investigation. India responded that international engagement should be based on dialogue, consultation, cooperation, transparency and non-selectivity. It also asked delegations to cite reports faithfully and avoid treating allegations as verdicts.

These principles matter because investigations affect people’s rights and a country’s reputation. Impartiality reduces one-sided conclusions. Transparency lets others examine the evidence and reasoning. Non-selectivity means applying standards consistently across countries. The article shows an ongoing disagreement: experts seek accountability, while India challenges what it considers incomplete or unsupported characterisation.