The UPR, held every four years, is a mechanism for reviewing the human rights records of member states. Any member state can ask questions and make recommendations to the state under review. During the fourth review of India’s UPR on Thursday, member states also asked New Delhi to reduce the broad application of “anti-terror” laws. India’s Hindu nationalist government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has come under scrutiny for using the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), particularly targeting minority groups and human rights activists, without giving them a chance for a fair trial. “We recommend that India reduce its broad application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and similar laws against human rights activists, journalists and religious minorities,” said Michele Taylor, the US ambassador to the council. “Despite legal protection, discrimination and violence based on gender and religious beliefs still exist. The implementation of anti-terrorist legislation has led to prolonged detentions of human rights defenders and activists,” he added. UAPA is an “anti-terrorism” law under which authorities can designate someone as a “terrorist” on suspicion and hold them for months without bail. The law has been criticized for its use against members of minority and rights groups and its low conviction rate. While several countries appreciated India for implementing some of the recommendations shared during the last UPR held in 2017, others were quick to raise critical issues regarding the country’s worsening stance on minority rights, freedom of speech and violence. against women in particular. Canada urged India to investigate all acts of sexual violence and protect freedom of religion by investigating religious violence “including against Muslims”, while Germany said it “remains concerned about the rights of marginalized groups”. Earlier in April, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) accused India of “engaging in and condoning systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom”. The independent bipartisan panel had asked the US State Department to include India in the list of “areas of particular concern”.
India defends
New Delhi insisted it valued the role played by human rights defenders and said it would only impose the death penalty in “the rarest of rare cases” as it listened to other nations’ criticisms at the UNHRC. “India condemns all forms of torture and maintains an inviolable stance against arbitrary detention, torture, rape or sexual violence by anyone,” India’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the council. New Delhi has signed the UN Convention against Torture but has not ratified it. Aakar Patel, Amnesty International’s India president, told Al Jazeera that “the democratic world is doing exactly what it should be doing” by asking India questions about its human rights record in the UPR. “People are saying in India that the laws being implemented are not according to its constitution. Amendment of the Nationality Act [CAA] it is not according to the constitution of India and we should know that,” Patel said, referring to a controversial law passed by the Indian parliament in 2019 that eases Indian citizenship to “persecuted” minorities from neighboring countries but excludes Muslims. Hundreds of Muslims, including students and activists, have been arrested for protesting against the CAA, which has been criticized for not complying with international human rights standards. Many of them have been affected by the UAPA.
Country with the most internet outages
During the UPR process, delegates also raised the issue of India’s stance on freedom of speech and expression, with Switzerland suggesting that India should “ensure open access to social networks and not impose measures that will slow down or block Internet connections.” India tops the world in internet outages with Indian-controlled Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region, responsible for more than 60 percent of internet outages. Mehta, the Indian Solicitor General, said the Indian constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech. However, “freedom of speech and expression is not absolute in nature and is subject to reasonable limitations” in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, security, foreign relations, “public order, decency, morality, contempt of court , defamation or incitement an offence,” he said. “Imposing reasonable restrictions enables the state to regulate freedom of speech and expression where it amounts to hate speech,” he insisted. The peer review mechanism of the UPR process was established in 2006 by the UN General Assembly. All 193 UN member states undergo this review every four years, where countries are brought under the scrutiny and accountability of other members and allowed to answer their questions on issues they consider critical. Member states are also allowed to make recommendations to each other and discuss progress from previous sessions. Sanjay Verma, secretary of India’s foreign ministry, said he would take the recommendations back to New Delhi for consideration. “The Government of India’s abiding commitment is to promote and protect the human rights of our people,” he said. “As the world’s largest democracy, India is committed to the highest standards of human rights.”
