India re-joined well at the 4th Universal Periodic Review at UNHRC

New Delhi: Several countries appreciated India for taking note and implementing the last recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and its national report submitted at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva.

However, some member countries raised critical issues relating to human rights in India, especially those of minorities, internet shutdowns, digital exclusion, freedom of Speech, CAA, FCRA, hate speech, privacy, surveillance and data protection.

Countries members in discussion suggested and recommended further improving its record on issues of Human Rights, especially those of minorities, freedom of Speech, more independence for the civil society to work, more development and health programmes in backward and rural areas, for children, women and disabled in India.

India report was discussed on Thursday, where some countries reminded the Indian government fulfilling their commitments and recommended India sign some of the international conventions to promote accountability and “rectify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

India's National Report for the 4th Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was studied on November 10, at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva. India submitted its national report in August 2022.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group session is being held from 7 to November 18 2022, in Palais des Nations, United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland.

India's response

Solicitor General of India, Mukul Rohatgi, who led the Indian delegation at the UN Human Rights Council, said that recommendations have been noted and concluded the session explaining a few of the concerns raised by the delegates.

On rectify the Convention against Torture, Mukul Rastogi said that India condemns any type of torture and believes in right to life, right to liberty and right to live. He added that India is committed to rectify the convention and the same draft is circulated to different States and Union territories following the country’s legal system.

On the Kashmir issue intruded by Pakistan, India told Pakistan that the entire Union Territory of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh were and will always be its integral and inalienable part and said that after the constitutional changes in 2019, the people of the region are now able to realize their full potential as in other parts of the country.

"The entire Union Territory of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh were and will always be an integral and inalienable part of India," Tushar Mehta said, responding to the Pakistani representative's intervention.

On the issue of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act {FCRA}, Tushar Mehta said actions were taken against some civil society organizations due to their illegal practices, including mala fide rerouting of money and continuing violations of foreign exchange management rules and tax laws of the country, reiterating that such groups must operate following the law.

Delegates voiced concern about the application of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, which needed more transparency demanding that some NGOs working on the ground should be fine, or their licences get cancelled.

On Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, the Solicitor General responded it is "limited and focused legislation, which reaffirms India's commitment to the welfare of persecuted minorities in the region." He reaffirms the country's commitment to the welfare of persecuted minorities in the region and considers "historical context and the current ground realities".

Solicitor Rastogi added that the legislation is similar to laws elsewhere in defining specific criteria for citizenship pathways. “The criteria defined here is specific to India and its neighbourhood and takes into account the historical context and the current ground realities.”

He defended that it is aimed at enabling foreigners of six minority communities -- Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian -- from three "specified neighbouring countries" -- Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, "who have migrated to India, owing to their religious persecution in those countries to obtain Indian citizenship."

"It will help reduce their statelessness and enable beneficiaries to have a more secure and dignified life. This Act neither takes away the citizenship of any Indian citizen nor amends nor abridges any existing process for acquiring Indian citizenship by any foreigner of any country belonging to any faith or religion," Mehta responded.

Regarding the Fundamental right to Speech and expression raised by some member countries, the Attorney General responded that the Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of Speech and expression.

"Like any other freedom, the freedom of speech and expression is not absolute in nature and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with the foreign state, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence," he said.

Mehta noted that these restrictions are conceived to protect national and public interest and must meet a very high threshold. "Imposing reasonable restrictions enables the state to regulate freedom of speech and expression when it amounts to hate speech or leads to incitement to an offence," Mehta said, adding that it is settled law in India that any restriction imposed must not be excessive or disproportionate.

India was represented by contingent of legal luminaries and experts led by Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, and Sanjay Verma, Secretary (West) Ministry of External Affairs, to participate and defend issues raised against India.

The other members comprise Amb. Indra Mani Pandey, Permanent Representative of India in Geneva, K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General of India and senior officials from the Ministry of External Affairs.

Members from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Women & Child Development, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Minority Affairs, Ministry of Rural Development, the NITI Aayog, and the Vice Chancellor of the National Law University, Delhi, also participated in the review.

India's UPR outcome report will be adopted at the 52nd session of the Human Rights Council in March 2023.

The National Report of India, submitted on August 5 2022, outlines steps towards promoting and protecting human rights, including implementing recommendations accepted by India's suggested in the 3rd UPR cycle in 2017.

India's report was prepared in collaboration with the National Law University, Delhi, after consultations with diverse stakeholders, drawing representatives from the judiciary, national human rights institutions, academia, civil society organizations, and the general public.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States. The UPR is a significant innovation of the Human Rights Council based on equal treatment for all countries.

It provides an opportunity for all States to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to overcome challenges to the enjoyment of human rights.

The UPR was established when the Human Rights Council was created on March 15 2006, by the UN General Assembly in resolution 60/251. it mandated the Council to "undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment concerning all States".

The reviews are conducted by the UPR Working Group, which consists of the 47 members of the Council; however, any UN Member State can take part in the discussion/dialogue with the reviewed States.

Each State review is assisted by groups of three States, known as "troikas", who serve as rapporteurs. The selection of the troikas for each State is made through a drawing of lots following elections for the Council membership in the General Assembly.

The reviews are based on the information provided by the State under Review, which can take the form of a "national report"; information contained in the reports of independent human rights experts and groups, known as the Special Procedures, human rights treaty bodies, and other UN entities; input from other stakeholders including national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations.

Currently, no other mechanism of this kind exists. India plays an active role and has been engaged constructively with the members of the UNHRC and other fellow UN Member States to promote and protect human rights globally. India was earlier reviewed in 2017, 2012 and 2008.