The experts said the SIR process affects 130 million people, or 13 crore, a number roughly equal to the population of Mexico.
United Nations’ experts have criticised the Indian police’s “heavy-handed” response to youth-led protests in Delhi and elsewhere over the past three months, urging authorities to protect peaceful agitations and ensure justice for alleged rights violations during these and earlier demonstrations.
“This crackdown reflects a broader, troubling pattern,” the experts said in a statement issued in Geneva on Tuesday. “We have repeatedly alerted the Indian authorities to undue restrictions on peaceful assembly, excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and the targeting of student activists, amongst others.”
There was no immediate reaction from the Indian government or authorities at the time of filing this report.
The statement comes as the protests, which began over government decisions on the education system, have widened into a sustained challenge to the Union government. The latest trigger is the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The experts said the SIR process affects 130 million people, or 13 crore, a number roughly equal to the population of Mexico. They said those affected reportedly belong to the Muslim minority, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The unrest over the SIR has gathered pace since late September, after reports that two deputies of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar raised internal concerns about the exercise. The youth-led Cockroach Janta Party and student groups have sought Kumar’s resignation and a halt to the SIR exercise. They have described their latest phase of protests as “Season 2”
However, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre and the Election Commission have denied any manipulation of the rolls, and the BJP has defended the revision as a clean-up of voter lists. Opposition parties and several independent analysts have also alleged the Muslims have been disproportionately affected, though researchers note that religion-wise data has not been published, so such estimates rest on name analysis.
India has also pushed back against international criticism. Earlier this month, the Ministry of External Affairs called a UN statement on the protests selective and an “unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of India”.
On the ground, the numbers are large. The experts said over 7,000 youths, journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers and members of political parties were recently detained in the Capital and taken to remote detention centres. Their phones were allegedly seized and protest-related material deleted. Most, including protest leaders, were freed 24 hours later.
The figure is more than three times the over 2,000 detentions that the police reportedly made on October 10, when large parts of central Delhi were locked down. Most of those held were released late that night. The statement did not mention whether the experts’ count covers a longer period or several protest days.
“Despite the non-violent nature of the assemblies, law enforcement agencies have reportedly deployed force against unarmed students, including lathi charges and have prevented thousands from joining the protests,” the experts said.
The panel said it was particularly worried by reports of sexual violence and other gender-based abuse during the protests and related detentions. It urged that special attention be paid to the gender-specific impact of curbs on assembly and to reprisals against women protesters.
The experts also took aim at the legal tools used to manage the protests. They said section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, India’s criminal procedure code, was invoked reportedly to impose broad bans on gatherings, suspend public transport and shut down the internet. To be sure, the police used the provision to bar gatherings of five or more people in parts of the capital on October 10.
“These actions violate India’s core international legal obligations, including the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, liberty, security of the person, and the right to defend human rights,” the experts said. They added that any restriction on assembly must be legal, serve a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate.
The panel listed specific demands. “We call on the authorities to immediately cease the use of excessive force, rescind blanket assembly bans, and refrain from the misuse of digital surveillance, including through biometrics, and internet disruptions,” it said.
