UN body flags severe violence against religious minorities, focus on Manipur

A UN committee which monitors India’s human rights compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has expressed concern about the very high levels of violence against religious minorities, especially incidents in Manipur since May 2023.

While expressing concerns about Manipur, where ethnic violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities broke out in May 2023, the committee also highlighted the Gujarat riots of 2002, and the resulting lack of accountability for human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings.

“The Committee is also concerned by other violent incidents, such as the demolitions of religious minorities’ places of worship and private homes following the riots during Ram Navami processions in 2022, most of them belonging to Muslims, and the reports of violence and lynching by 'cow vigilantes' against Muslims and Christians,” it stated.

The body has suggested that India should consider adopting national legislation to expressly outlaw violence and lynching by “cow vigilantes”. They were also concerned by the application of national security and counter-terrorism laws to “target religious minorities and about reports of public officials engaging in hate speech and inciting public violence against religious minorities”.

The committee also expressed ongoing concern about forced displacement, and highlighted attacks on Adivasis practicing Christianity and vigilante lynchings of Muslims. Additionally, the committee said it was troubled by the lack of scheduled caste status and reservation benefits for Dalits who have converted to Islam or Christianity.

The UN committee, which India voluntarily agreed to engage with upon joining the ICCPR in 1979, reviews the government's adherence to civil and political rights, such as the right to life, freedom of expression, association, and religion — all guaranteed by India’s Constitution.

India submitted its fourth periodic report on 22 September 2021, over 25 years late. The UN committee, comprising independent human rights experts from 18 countries including Egypt, Senegal, Spain, Costa Rica, the USA, Chile, Japan, and France, reviews both government and shadow reports from civil society and academics.

After a report is submitted, the UN body sets a discussion date and a deadline for shadow reports. India’s delegation, led by attorney-general R. Venkataramani, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, and senior government officials, met with the committee on 16 July 2024. At the meeting, civil society members also presented their views on the country’s track record of compliance with civil and political rights.

Following this, the UN body released its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of India and recommendations for improving compliance with civil and political rights.

Accountability for serious human rights violations

During the dialogue with the UN committee, India described Manipur's long-standing ethnic conflict, acknowledging some instances of rape and sexual offences but asserting that these were not widespread. Special investigation teams led by senior officials from outside Manipur were set up to address these issues, said India.

The committee expressed concern over the counter-terrorism legislation's impact in “disturbed areas” such as Manipur, Jammu and Kashmir, and Assam. It highlighted severe human rights violations, including excessive force, unlawful killings, arbitrary detention, delays in habeas corpus petitions, sexual violence, forced displacement, and torture.

The committee suggested that India should review and revise its counter-terrorism laws — such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958; the Jammu and Kashmir Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1990; the National Security Act, 1980; the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978; and the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005 — to ensure they align with Covenant obligations and adhere to principles of legal certainty, predictability, necessity, and proportionality.

On discrimination

In its report, India highlighted that Articles 25, 29, and 30 of its Constitution promote non-discrimination and protect religious, linguistic, and cultural minorities. This legal framework addresses both direct and indirect discrimination.

However, the UN committee expressed concern over the lack of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that fully meets ICCPR requirements. It noted issues such as discrimination and violence against minority groups, including Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs, and recommended strengthening the monitoring and reporting of discrimination complaints, ensuring prompt and effective investigations, and enacting comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.

It was also concerned by reports indicating systemic challenges to the implementation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, such as delayed registration of “first information reports” (FIRs), inadequate police investigations, lengthy trials and non-compliance with the mandate of 60-day case disposal requirement.

The committee wanted India to “ensure that all allegations of discrimination or violence against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, Dalits and the so-called other backward classes and other ethnic and national minorities and Dalits converted to Islam or Christianity are promptly, impartially and effectively investigated, that perpetrators are prosecuted, and if convicted punished with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the offences and provide victims with full reparation and means of protection”.

It wanted India to consider amending legislation to ensure that Dalit, Muslims and Christians enjoy adequate protection against discrimination and violence.

The committee also said it wanted India to effectively implement and enforce existing legal and policy frameworks on addressing manual scavenging, in particular regarding local governments and municipalities, and provide adequate financial resources for rehabilitation.

Citizenship and prevention of statelessness

In its fourth periodic report, India noted that the NRC (National Register of Citizens) update process is currently underway only in Assam, starting in 2013 based on a Supreme Court directive. The legal framework for this update includes The Citizenship Act 1955, and The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003.

India emphasised that non-inclusion in the NRC does not equate to being declared a foreigner. Those dissatisfied with NRC determinations can appeal to Foreigners' Tribunals in Assam within 120 days, with further judicial review available at Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court of India.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (CAA) is a focused legislation aimed at reaffirming India's commitment to secularism, having been enacted after extensive parliamentary deliberations and review by a 30-member Joint Parliamentary Committee.

In response to India’s claims, the Committee expressed concerns that the CAA 2019 and the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024 grant citizenship based on religious criteria, particularly disadvantaging Muslims. These laws confer citizenship only on Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, Christians, and Jains from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.

The committee also noted the excessively complex procedures faced by Muslims seeking to be included in the National Population Register and NRC, which risks leaving over 20 lakh Muslims in Assam stateless and potentially indefinitely detained. Additionally, the committee underscored that it was troubled by the 1986 circular from the ministry of home affairs, which denies Indian citizenship to Sri Lankan Tamil refugees of Indian origin, and by the challenges refugee parents face in registering their children.

On freedom of association

India explained that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 (FCRA) regulates the acceptance and use of foreign contributions by individuals, associations, and companies in India. Action is taken against violators based on security agency inputs and record scrutiny. As of 23 August 2021, 22,716 associations had valid FCRA registrations.

India emphasised that allegations of FCRA misuse against human rights institutions such as Amnesty International stem from violations like illegal fund rerouting and breaches of FCRA, foreign exchange, and tax laws. These matters are currently under judicial review and reiterated that all institutions are permitted to operate in India, but must do so in accordance with the law.

In response, the committee expressed concern that the FCRA is being misused to target NGOs critical of the government and suppress dissent, including those working on human rights issues. It noted that over 20,600 NGOs had their FCRA licenses cancelled between 2011 and 2021. The committee urged India to review and amend the FCRA to clarify its provisions and ensure it does not unduly restrict the right to freedom of association or interfere with the operation of civil society organizations.

It wants India to ensure that civil society organisations can operate free of undue state interference or influence and without fear of reprisals or restrictions on their operations contrary to the provisions of the Covenant.

Anti-corruption measures

India informed the committee of its commitment to combating corruption through the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (POCA) and its 2018 amendments, which aim to prevent bribery and corruption. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014, establishes a mechanism to address complaints of corruption and protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

India also highlighted reforms in criminal misconduct, including fraudulent misappropriation and illicit enrichment. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA) includes POCA offences as scheduled offences, enabling the Directorate of Enforcement to seize property and prosecute in special courts.

In the discussion on 16 July, where India was asked about the implementation of the Whistleblowers Act, the country chose to remain silent.

It must be noted here that Parliament enacted the Whistleblowers Protection Act in 2014, but it has not been operationalised for a decade because rules have not been made.  

In contrast, the committee reported concerns about: a) the killing of over 60 activists, whistleblowers, journalists, and human rights defenders since 2018, along with harassment; b) the frequent denial of information requests regarding government actions; and c) the challenges to investigating and prosecuting corruption following the 2018 amendments to POCA.

The committee urged India to: effectively implement the Right to Information Act 2005; amend the Prevention of Corruption Act 2018 to enhance its effectiveness; improve corruption reporting mechanisms; and ensure robust protection for whistleblowers.

Additionally, it called for increased efforts to investigate and prosecute corruption at all levels, including the judiciary, and to address attacks on journalists, human rights defenders, and activists, ensuring fair prosecution and appropriate penalties for perpetrators while providing reparations to victims.