INTRODUCTION:

What is the meaning of human rights. Human rights are the basic rights or individual freedoms one has simply because the person is a human being. They constitute individuals as a particular kind of political subject, free and equal rights-bearing citizens. Human rights declarations outline regulative rules and practices of how governments should treat citizens. They are like a forward-looking moral, economic, cultural, and political vision of a society. Human rights also characterize societies of a particular type by defining the requirements and limits of legitimate government (Rawls 1999; Donnelly 2013). These rights are equal, inalienable, and universal. That means all individuals should enjoy these civil liberties without distinction of any kind such as race/ethnicity, colour, gender, language, religion, political, or other opinions. To resist oppression is at the very core of the concept of human rights. Human rights explicitly address power imbalances and raise the question of the legitimacy of the powerful (UDHR, 1948). So, at the background of human rights is the issue of power or public governance and accountability (Damian O. Odunze, 2018). The major differences between fundamental rights and human rights are, the term fundamental rights is used in a constitutional law context, whereas the term ‘human rights’ is used in an international law. The fundamental rights are a particular country specific and human rights are an universal in nature. The two terms are often used interchangeably because they refer to the same basic rights and freedoms. Moreover, the two terms refer largely to the same substance as can be seen, for instance, by the many similarities between the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights (The European Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2025).

In order to understanding politics as the “authoritative allocation of values,” as David Easton suggests, puts human rights at the center of twenty-first-century world politics. As a set of values, human rights are predicated on the idea that human beings, people, are the central subjects of politics and certain rights inhere in them because they are human. Depriving human beings of these inherent rights diminishes and offends their humanity. The offending agent is non-specific; it could be a governmental authority or a private, nongovernmental, or non-state actor. The concept of human rights as inherent focuses on the humanity of the individual, not on the inhumanity of the offender. More over, by extension, if depriving an individual of these rights constitutes an offense against their humanity, it is an act of inhumanity (Franke Wilmer,2018). So, the State or country through its government or governments has be to protect the HRs of its citizens and other people in that particular country. At an international level, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10th December,1948, was the first legal document to set out the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. The UDHR, which turns 75 years on 10th December 2023, continues to be the foundation of all international human rights law. Moreover, its 30 articles provide the principles and building blocks of current and future human rights conventions, treaties and other legal instruments. The UDHR, together with the 2 covenants such as the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights make up the International Bill of Rights (OHCHR, 2024).

The States have obligations and duties under international law to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. Moreover, the obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. India is a member state of UN and it has to does these in its country as well. All States, which includes India have to be ratified all the core human rights treaties, as well as optional protocols in order to protect human rights in their respective states. Human rights are universal and inalienable, indivisible and interdependent, and equal and non-discriminatory (OHCHR, 2024). The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is the leading United Nations (UN) entity at international level in the field of human rights, with an unique mandate to promote and protect all human rights for all people in the world. According to an OHCHR, “Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty” (OHCHR, 2024). Its main role is promoting and protecting human rights. More over, the OHCHR speaks out against human rights violations, and helps create standards for measuring human rights progress globally.

Evaluation of Human Rights violations and Public Administration Practices in India:

The US Department of State use to publish the states or Countries Reports on Human Rights Practices of their respective countries every year. Moreover, the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – the Human Rights Report, cover internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements. The USA’s Department of State submits reports on all countries receiving assistance and all United Nations member states to the U.S. Congress in accordance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Trade Act of 1974(US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2024). As mandated by US Congress, every year since 1977, the State Department’s dedicated public servants in US missions abroad and in Washington scrupulously examine, track, and document the state of human rights in nearly 200 countries and territories around the world. In compiling these “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices”, commonly known as the Human Rights Report (HRR), they have drawn from a variety of credible, fact-based sources, including reporting from government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and media. The HRR helps connect US diplomatic and foreign assistance efforts to the fundamental American value of protecting and promoting respect for human rights for all, while helping to inform the work of civil society, human rights defenders, scholars, multilateral institutions, and others(US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2024). In fact, USA is number one leading country in the world, which provides human security to the people. After this, Canada and Japan countries also used to provide the same to the people to some extent.

The US Department of State publishes its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices of India as well in every year. Moreover, the United States of America’s US Department of State recently published its HRR entitled as “2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: India”. These 80 pages detailed HRR had contains seven sections. These are as follows viz, Section 1 deals Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Section 2 deals Respect for Civil Liberties, Section 3 deals Freedom to Participate in the Political Process, Section 4 deals Corruption in Government, Section 5 deals Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights, Section 6 deals Discrimination and Societal Abuses and final Section 7 deals Worker Rights. This paper has covered order wise the first three sections only due space limit for publication in the journal and the rest was used for another paper publication in the journal else where.

So, before analysis of HRR India first three sections in a detailed manner, let us see brief executive summary of the report as follows. The outbreak of ethnic conflict between the Kuki and Meitei ethnic groups during the 2023 year in India’s north eastern state of Manipur resulted in significant human rights abuses. The media had reported at least 175 persons were killed and more than 60,000 displaced between May 3 and November 15,2023. Activists and journalists reported armed conflict, rapes, and assaults in addition to the destruction of homes, businesses, and places of worship. The government deployed security forces, implemented daily curfews, and internet shutdowns in response to the violence. The Supreme Court of India had criticized the failure of the central government and the Manipur state government to halt the violence and appointed officials to investigate incidents of violence and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance and the rebuilding of homes and places of worship (US Department of State, 2023).

The significant human rights issues included credible reports of arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; enforced disappearances; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; political prisoners or detainees; transnational repression against individuals in another country; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; serious abuses in a conflict, including reportedly unlawful or widespread civilian deaths or harm, torture, physical abuses, and conflict-related sexual violence or punishment; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, censorship, and enforcement of or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; restrictions on freedom of movement and residence within the territory of a state and on the right to leave the country; government corruption; serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence, sexual violence, workplace violence, child, early, and forced marriage, female genital mutilation/cutting, femicide, and other forms of such violence; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting members of ethnic and caste minorities had happened in India. In response to these human rights violations, the government took only minimal credible steps or action to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses(US Department of State, 2023).

Section 1: Respect for the Integrity of the Person

This section issue is subdivided into A to I . These are analysed below.

a) Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings:

There were several reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year. Media reports often described these allegedly staged killings of accused individuals at the hands of police or security forces as “encounter killings”. There were allegations that police or prison guards killed prisoners and these killings were sometimes misclassified as suicides or deaths from natural causes. On February 5, police allegedly killed Dhaneswar Behera, accused of poaching, while in custody in Odisha’s state of Cuttack District. On February 6, the Odisha Forest Department arrested six officials for their involvement in the death. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India had conducted an investigation into Behera’s death and on August 27, directed the Odisha government to pay compensation to Behera’s next of kin for negligence on the part of government employees (US Department of State, 2023). The country registered 813 cases of extrajudicial killings between 2016-2022, with the most reported in Chhattisgarh (state), followed by UP (state). According to nongovernmental sources, there was one conviction of an army officer in Jammu and Kashmir (JandK) of the 813 cases documented during that period. In March, a military court convicted a captain for a “staged encounter” of three individuals in Amshipura of JandK in July 2020 and recommended life imprisonment. As of November 15, the sentence remained pending. The killings by government forces and nongovernment entities were reported in JandK, north eastern states, and Maoist-affected areas of the country (US Department of State, 2023).

b) Disappearance:

There were reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities, including allegations police failed to file required arrest reports for detained persons, resulting in unresolved disappearances. Police and government officials denied these claims. The central government reported state government screening committees informed families regarding the status of detainees. There were reports prison guards sometimes required bribes from families to confirm the detention of their relatives. According to human rights organizations, approximately 8,000-10,000 persons disappeared in the JandK region between 1989-2006, allegedly attributed to government forces, paramilitary forces, and terrorists. Data documenting disappearances in JandK since 2006 were limited. Press reported the body of Abdul Rashid Dar was recovered on March 1 in the Kupwara District in Kashmir. Soldiers detained Dar in December 2022, and according to his family, he went missing after his detention. Upon recovering Dar’s body, his family accused the army of forcibly disappearing Dar and killing him in custody. The army unit involved in Dar’s case told police Dar had fled during questioning (US Department of State, 2023). On March 24, the UN’s Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance and UN special rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders expressed concern regarding the government’s treatment of Kashmiri human rights defenders and called for the closing of investigations against them and for their release. Rapporteurs noted continued allegations of lack of identification, protection, and preservation of large numbers of unmarked single and mass burial sites in Kashmir, including the failure to conduct proper forensic investigations, efforts to search for the forcibly disappeared, and the lack of progress in identifying the remains of individuals buried therein in accordance with international standards. The rapporteurs stated they were concerned by reports of intimidation and harassment against individuals and civil society organizations, including human rights defenders and journalists who called for investigation and accountability (US Department of State, 2023).

c) Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses

The law prohibited such above practices, but there were credible reports that government officials employed them. The law did not permit authorities to admit coerced confessions into evidence, but the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, reported authorities used torture to coerce confessions. Authorities allegedly also used torture to extort money or as summary punishment. There were reports that police beatings of prisoners resulted in custodial deaths. According to the Human Rights Watch annual World Report, police used torture, other mistreatment, and arbitrary detentions to obtain forced or false confessions. In some cases, police reportedly held suspects without registering their arrests and denied detainees access to sufficient food and water(US Department of State, 2023).

There were other reports of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, namely by police. The Bihar State Human Rights Commission ordered the its state government on July 18 to pay rupees 25,000 ($300) each to six individuals whom police had handcuffed and paraded before media in Madhepura District. The individuals, who included two children, were arrested under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in 2021. In addition, the commission condemned the conduct of the Madhepura superintendent of police at that time, detailing that his conduct violated the accused persons human rights by handcuffing and publishing photographs of the individuals. The commission also ordered the Bihar(state) government to issue guidelines to state police officials to prevent similar incidences in the future(US Department of State, 2023).

Police officers were also implicated in allegations of rape, including of victims in police custody. The government authorized the NHRC to investigate rape cases involving police officers. In June, the NHRC requested the government of Rajasthan to provide a detailed report on the alleged gang rape and killing of a woman, age 21, by three individuals, including two police personnel. NGOs claimed NHRC statistics undercounted the number of rapes committed in police custody, and some rape survivors were unwilling to report crimes due to social stigma and fear of retribution if the perpetrator was a police officer or official. There were reports police officials also refused to register rape cases(US Department of State, 2023).

As far as prison and detention center conditions are concerned, prison conditions were harsh and life threatening due to extreme overcrowding, inadequate sanitary conditions, and lack of medical care in India. Moreover, these two centers conditions are discussed below. Regarding abusive physical conditions, Indian prisons were often severely overcrowded. According to the 2022 India Justice Report (IJR), the average national occupancy rate in prisons in 2021 was 130 percent, which was a very high percentage. Food, medical care, sanitation, and environmental conditions frequently were inadequate in prisons. Potable water was not universally available. Prisons and detention centers were underfunded and understaffed, and they lacked sufficient infrastructure. Prisoners were sometimes physically mistreated. This is a condemnable violation of human rights by the public administration in India. The law required detention of juveniles in rehabilitative facilities, but at times authorities detained juveniles in adult prisons, especially in rural areas(US Department of State, 2023). This is also violation of human rights in India.

As far as administration is concerned, there were reports that police and prison officials often failed to comply with a Supreme Court order to conduct regular checks to monitor custodial violence. Authorities did, however, permit prisoners to register complaints with national and state human rights commissions, but commissions authorities extended only to making recommendations. The NHRC received and investigated prisoner complaints of human rights abuses throughout the year. Civil society representatives stated that few prisoners filed complaints due to fear of retribution from prison guards or officials (US Department of State, 2023). Regarding independent monitoring is concerned, the NHRC made unannounced visits to monitor state prisons in multiple states. Neither the NHRC nor Boards of Visitors, both government institutions meant to operate independently, were required to publicly release reports on their findings. The NHRC’s jurisdiction did not extend to military detention centers (US Department of State, 2023).

d)Arbitrary Arrest or Detention:

The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court. The government generally observed these requirements, but there were numerous reports of arbitrary arrests and several instances where police used special laws to postpone judicial reviews of arrests. This should be condemnable and should not be take place in future. Reports cited lengthy arbitrary detentions remained a significant problem due to a lack of legal safeguards and overburdened and under resourced court systems (US Department of State, 2023). As far as arrest procedures and treatment of detainees are concerned, an arrested person had to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of arrest unless authorities held the suspect under a preventive detention law for concerns related to security risks, terrorism, or insurgency. If police detained a person under preventive detention, they could hold the person without charge for up to 30 days, and a court could authorize a detention for a period of up to 90 days prior to filing charges. Under standard criminal procedure, authorities were required to release the accused on bail after 90 days if charges were not filed; however, courts could extend this period to 180 days. The National Security Act allowed police to detain persons considered security risks without charge or trial for as long as one year (US Department of State, 2023). So, there is no transparency in this act. This was very unfortunate and the parliament of India should amend this act with focus on removing this provision in the act.

The Public Safety Act applied only to JandK and permitted authorities to detain persons without charge or judicial review for up to two years without visitation from family members. As of February, press reported that more than 800 persons remained in detention under the Public Safety Act in JandK from 2019 to February, including 22 persons detained during the year. There were reports the government issued new detention orders immediately upon the expiration of a two-year detention, effectively allowing for detentions for indefinite periods without trial. This was a very clear violation of human rights from the government side. Due to delays in completing repatriation procedures, foreign nationals often remained incarcerated beyond the expiration of their sentences, including those charged under the immigration act for irregular entry or stay. The National Security Act allowed family members and lawyers to visit individuals detained for national security reasons and required authorities to inform a detainee of the grounds for detention within five days, or up to 15 days in exceptional circumstances. Human rights activists noted instances where these provisions were not followed (US Department of State, 2023).

The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) gave authorities the ability to detain persons for up to 180 days without charge in cases related to insurgency and terrorism. The UAPA had stringent bail provisions, particularly for those suspected of terrorism. State governments also reportedly held persons without bail for extended periods before filing formal charges under the UAPA. Civil society organizations expressed concern that the central government used the UAPA to target and arbitrarily detain human rights activists, members of minority groups, and journalists under the guise of national security. Under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), the central government could designate a state or union territory or a part of any region as a disturbed area, authorizing security forces in the state to use deadly force to maintain law and order and to arrest any person against whom reasonable suspicion existed, without informing the detainee of the grounds for arrest (US Department of State, 2023). The law also provided security forces immunity from civilian prosecution for acts committed in regions under the AFSPA. Human rights organizations asserted the law violated the country’s constitution and continued to call for its repeal. The Ministry of Home Affairs reduced the jurisdiction of the AFSPA in districts of Assam, Manipur, and Nagaland in April after it claimed improvements in the security situation in the northeast. The designation as a disturbed area under the AFSPA remained in effect in other parts of Nagaland, parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Assam, and a version of the law was in effect in JandK (US Department of State, 2023).

Regarding the arbitrary arrest is concerned, the law prohibited arbitrary arrest or detention; however, police reportedly arrested persons arbitrarily, particularly under the UAPA. According to a study by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, the UAPA accounted for more than 8,000 arrests between 2015 and 2020. There were reports of police detaining individuals for custodial interrogation without identifying themselves or providing arrest warrants. Between 2014 and 2020, more than 7,000 persons were charged with sedition according to an NGO assessment. Government data presented to parliament in 2021 indicated no more than two persons were convicted of sedition annually from 2014-2019. The Supreme Court of India suspended the sedition law in May 2022, which halted criminal sedition cases; this pause continued during the year (US Department of State, 2023). This was very good for protecting the HRs in India.

On February 2, Kerala-based journalist Siddique Kappan was released from jail after more than two years of imprisonment. Multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, granted Kappan bail on several criminal charges. UP police detained Kappan and student activist Atikur Rahman while traveling to Hathras in UP to investigate the alleged gang rape of a Dalit woman in 2020. Kappan and Rahman, both Muslims were arrested and charged with sedition and provisions under the UAPA for allegedly promoting religious enmity between different groups. Media reports indicated Rahman was released from detention in June. Civil society organizations criticized these arrests as arbitrary and attributed their arrests to their identities and activism for marginalized groups (US Department of State, 2023). On October 31, the Supreme Court announced it would hear student and human rights activist Umar Khalid’s bail plea on November 22, which was then adjourned to January 2024. His bail hearing was repeatedly delayed since his arrest in 2020 under the UAPA. International and local activists demanded Khalid’s release, noting he had been arbitrarily detained without trial since 2020(US Department of State, 2023). This was also a HRs violation from the government side. Regarding pre trial detention is concerned, pre trial detention was arbitrary and lengthy, sometimes exceeding the duration of the sentence given to those convicted. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data reported 427,165 prisoners were awaiting trial at the end of 2021, totaling 77 percent of the country’s prison population. Media reported the high numbers of pre trial detainees contributed to prison overcrowding. NCRB data showed 70 percent of individuals awaiting trial spent more than three months in jail before they could secure bail. Pre trial detention disproportionally affected poor and marginalized groups who were often least capable of posting bail. In April, the central government stated it would provide financial support to persons unable to afford legal counsel, penalties, or bail amounts (US Department of State, 2023).

e) Denial of Fair Public Trial

The law provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence, but the judicial system experienced delays, capacity problems, and allegations of corruption at lower levels. The central government and state governments generally adhered to Supreme Court and High Court rulings even when the courts ruled against government positions. According to assessments of the country’s judicial independence, however, the executive, in some instances, attempted to use its powers to reject or delay judicial appointments it found unfavorable. Academic experts noted the government tried to use the incentive of postretirement appointments to influence judges to pass judgements favorable to the ruling political party. Certain cases such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the validity of electoral bonds (a system of anonymous political donations instituted in 2017) had been on the Supreme Court docket for several years (US Department of State, 2023). As far as trial procedures are concerned, the law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, except in proceedings that involved official secrets or state security, and the judiciary generally enforced this right. Court capacity hampered the right to a timely trial. The judicial system had significant numbers of vacant positions for judges, remained seriously overburdened, and lacked modern case management systems, often leading to delayed or denied justice. The National Judicial Data Grid listed total pending criminal cases in the court system at more than 33.4 million as of October 25. Of these, 8.5 million cases had been pending for more than five years and 3.1 million for more than 10 years. Net numbers of unresolved criminal cases continued to rise, with approximately 1.4 million new cases instituted each month against a disposition rate of approximately 1.2 million cases (US Department of State, 2023).

Defendants, except for those booked under the UAPA, enjoyed the presumption of innocence. Defendants could choose their counsel. The constitution specified the state should provide free legal counsel to defendants who could not afford it, but sometimes capacity constraints led to limited access to competent counsel. Defendants had the right to confront accusers and present their own witnesses and evidence, but defendants sometimes did not exercise this right due to lack of proper legal representation. Between March 2020 and March 2022, the IJR reported a greater than 66 percent decrease in the number of nationally sanctioned legal aid clinics providing representation (US Department of State, 2023).

As far as political prisoners and detainees are concerned, there were no government reports of political prisoners or detainees. There were multiple reports of political prisoners from civil society organizations, members of marginalized groups, and minority political parties. They argued those held or charged with terrorism-related, defamation, or sedition crimes were political prisoners, often being held for their speech, advocacy, or nonviolent criticism of the government. Civil society organizations noted authorities granted irregular access to legal counsel for those prisoners and reportedly monitored prisoners’ visits with counsel. In August, All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a JandK organization advocating Kashmiri separatism, stated its chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq completed four years under house arrest without formal charges. The government denied that Farooq was under arrest (US Department of State, 2023).

f) Transnational Repression:

There were reports the government engaged in transnational repression against journalists, members of diaspora populations, civil society activists, and human rights defenders. This should be condemnable and should not be take place in the future. Regarding extraterritorial killing, kidnapping, forced returns, or other violence of threats of violence are concerned, the government was alleged by other governments, diaspora communities, and human rights groups to have killed persons, or used violence or threats of violence against individuals in other countries, for reprisal. On September 18, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his government was investigating allegations of a link between Indian government agents and the killing of a Sikh Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, whom the Indian government alleged and designated as a terrorist, and who advocated for the creation of an independent Sikh state called Khalistan. The Indian government denied any involvement (US Department of State, 2023). Regarding threats, harassment, surveillance, and coercion are concerned, civil society organizations, members of diaspora populations, and journalists working outside the country and advocating for human rights reported experiencing threats, harassment, arbitrary surveillance, and coercion, including online, that they attributed to the government or individuals alleged to be connected to the government. They reported that some of their families, friends, or associates in India also experienced harassment and pressure from local authorities because of their human rights activities. They noted these activities created a “chilling effect” on their advocacy efforts and led to self-censorship, due to fear of reprisals against themselves and their families in India (US Department of State, 2023).

Civil society leaders noted the blocking of social media accounts in India and hashtags, takedown requests, and proliferation of conspiracy theories in the country were examples of transnational repression against diaspora activists working to advance human rights and religious freedom. For example, on October 14, accounts of Hindus for Human Rights and the Indian American Muslim Council on X (formerly Twitter) were withheld in the country after it was noted X received a legal removal demand from the government. The government claimed the two accounts violated the Information Technology Act. The blocking of these two accounts came after Cabinet Minister Smriti Irani and IT Cell Head of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Amit Malviya publicly claimed that Hindus for Human Rights Executive Director Sunita Viswanath was working on behalf of philanthropist George Soros to allegedly “destroy India,” and that Indian American Muslim Council New Jersey leadership was allegedly tied to Pakistan-based political groups. After the X accounts of both organizations were blocked in October, Malviya renewed these claims on his social media account (US Department of State, 2023).

g) Property Seizure and Restitution:

There were numerous reports the government evicted persons from their places of residence, seized their property, or bulldozed homes and shops without due process or adequate restitution, citing illegalities in municipal rules and regulations. This is 100% violation of HRs from the government side and the involved public authorities should be punishable at earliest. In fact a civil society organization estimated the government demolished at least 43,000 homes between March 2020 and July 2021, as well as evicted approximately 21 persons every hour during that period. Human rights activists reported some state governments targeted vocal critics from the Muslim community, especially after incidents of protests or communal violence, by using bulldozers to destroy their homes and livelihoods under municipal pretences (US Department of State, 2023). Following communal clashes between Hindu and Muslim communities in Haryana on July 31^st and August 1^st, local officials demolished houses in a Muslim-majority district, claiming homes were used by perpetrators of communal violence and were built illegally on government land. On August 7, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Haryana state government to halt the demolition. The court questioned whether the demolitions were “an exercise of ethnic cleansing” against members of the Muslim community. The Supreme Court issued a separate ruling ordering the central and state government to ensure protests were peaceful and described economic boycotts against Muslim businesses as “unacceptable”. The state government claimed the demolitions complied with the law. Human rights organizations widely criticized the demolitions, noting bulldozers became a “major extrajudicial tool” used to destroy homes, business, and places of worship for minority group communities. Both the UAPA and the JandK specific Public Safety Act allowed the government to seize property with limited due process or safeguards (US Department of State, 2023).

h) Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence:

While the constitution did not contain an explicit right to privacy, the Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that privacy was a “fundamental right,” but there were reports that the government sometimes failed to respect this right. The law required police to obtain warrants to conduct searches and seizures, except for cases in which such actions would cause undue delay. Police had to justify warrantless searches in writing to the nearest magistrate with jurisdiction over the offense. There were reports government authorities accessed, collected, or used private communication arbitrarily or unlawfully to surveil or interfere with the privacy of individuals. Laws permitted the government to intercept calls to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country, the security of the state, and friendly relations with foreign states; to maintain public order; and to prevent incitement to the commission of an offense. The government denied conducting surveillance in violation of the law or formally established procedures (US Department of State, 2023).

In March, press reported the government was allegedly seeking to acquire and spend up to $120 million on new spyware contracts to replace its alleged contract with the NSO Group. The government did not acknowledge being a customer of the NSO Group, but human rights activists reported the government utilized spyware tools against opposition politicians, journalists, and other individuals of interest. In October, media reported members of opposition political parties said they received warning messages from Apple that they were being targeted by state-sponsored attackers. The Information Technology Minister’s Office expressed concern at the allegations and stated the government requested Apple to join its investigation into the matter. In August, the government passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, noting it was meant to safeguard personal data. Civil society and media organizations criticized it for exempting the government from safeguards that protected the right to privacy recognized by the Supreme Court. The UAPA also allowed use of evidence obtained from intercepted communications in alleged terrorism cases. In Jammu and Kashmir (JandK), Punjab, and Manipur, security officials had special authorities to search and arrest without a warrant (US Department of State, 2023).

I) Conflict Related Abuses:

The country’s armed forces, the security forces of individual states, and paramilitary forces engaged with terrorist groups in several north eastern states and JandK and with Maoist terrorists in the northern, central, and eastern parts of the country. The intensity of violence in these areas continued to decline. The army and security forces remained stationed in the north eastern states, Jharkhand, and Bihar. The armed forces and police also engaged with terrorist groups in JandK. There were reports that government security forces committed extrajudicial killings in these areas. According to human rights groups, police sometimes refused to release bodies. This was anti human activity of the government and this was a violation of HRs and should not be take place in the future. Authorities did not require the armed forces to report custodial deaths to the NHRC. There were few investigations and prosecutions of human rights abuses arising from these situations (US Department of State, 2023). Regarding killings, there were some reports that government security forces killed civilians during operations against terrorist organizations, which the government noted were unintended deaths, including of uninvolved individuals. In JandK, terrorists reportedly killed nine civilians. On April 14, the Defense Ministry’s military affairs department refused to allow Nagaland Police to prosecute 30 army commandos accused of killing 13 civilians in a “botched” counterinsurgency operation in Oting, a village in Nagaland, in 2021. The men were killed when the victims were erroneously identified as insurgents. The government deployed security forces, including the army, to control the violence that ensued in the state of Manipur beginning in May (US Department of State, 2023).

Between May 3 and November 15, at least 175 persons were killed and more than 60,000 internally displaced as a result of violence between the Kuki and Meitei ethnic groups. Hundreds of homes, businesses, and places of worship were reportedly burned or destroyed in the violence. The tensions grew after the release of an April 19 Manipur High Court directive to the state government regarding the Meitei community’s demand for Scheduled Tribe status, potentially threatening the land and other privileges the Kukis received as an officially designated tribal community. The violence emerged after a May 3 Kuki protest rally against the April Manipur High Court directive. The Supreme Court subsequently criticized this directive (US Department of State, 2023). On July 2, a Meitei mob allegedly beheaded David Theik, a Kuki villager in Churachandpur District. The government reportedly deployed army and 62 paramilitary forces to respond to the violence. Cases of investigations were filed but no prosecutions were reported as of December 1. Local human rights organizations, minority political parties, and affected communities criticized the national government for the delayed action to stop the violence and provide humanitarian assistance. The Supreme Court criticized the failure of the central government and the Manipur state government to halt the violence and appointed both a police official to investigate incidences of violence against women and a panel of retired senior judges to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance and the rebuilding of homes and places of worship. On September 4, UN experts urged the government to step up relief efforts and provide timely action to investigate acts of violence, hold perpetrators accountable, and foster a process of reconciliation between the Meitei, Kuki, and other impacted communities (US Department of State, 2023).

There were several acquittals in cases of killings of Muslims associated with communal violence in the state of Gujarat in 2002. On June 13, a Mumbai court acquitted Mafat Gohil and Harshad Solanki for their roles in the Best Bakery riots case in which 11 Muslims and three Hindus were killed in Vadodara in the 2002 riots. On April 20, a Gujarat court acquitted all 67 accused in the Naroda Gam massacre where 11 Muslims were killed during the Gujarat 2002 riots. The Naroda Gam case occurred at the same time as the Naroda Patiya killings of 97 Muslims, in which the Gujarat High Court upheld convictions of 12 of the 29 accused. On January 25, a Gujarat local court acquitted 14 individuals accused of murdering 17 Muslims in Delol Village and burning their bodies to destroy the evidence during the Gujarat 2002 communal riots (US Department of State, 2023). This was a human rights violations happened in the Gujarat(state). This should be condemnable and should not be take place in the future. Regarding abductions, human rights groups maintained that insurgent groups abducted persons in Chhattisgarh, Manipur, and JandK. On May 11, suspected Kuki militants allegedly kidnapped three Meiteis during ethnic violence in Manipur’s Churachandpur District when the militants visited the Torbung Bangla Village to collect rice (US Department of State, 2023). As far as physical abuse, punishment, and torture are concerned, in the context of the violence in Manipur, media reported several women were raped and assaulted during the violence, including two Kuki women who were paraded naked and allegedly gang-raped by a Meitei mob on May 4 in Kangpokpi District. Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the incident as “shameful” and urged action on the case. As of November, seven persons were arrested for their involvement in this incident (US Department of State, 2023). Regarding, other conflict-related abuse, the report mentioned that on October 5, human rights defender Babloo Loitongbam’s house in Manipur was vandalized by a mob. The UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights expressed alarm over the threats against Loitongbam and urged authorities to protect him and his family (US Department of State, 2023).

Section 2: Respect for Civil Liberties:

This is sub divided into A to G. These are analysed below.

a) Freedom of Expression, including for members of the Press and Other Media:

Individuals exercised freedom of expression by routinely criticizing the government publicly and privately via online platforms, television, radio, or print media, but there were numerous instances in which the government or actors considered close to the government allegedly pressured or harassed media outlets critical of the government, including through online trolling. Media organizations and individual journalists expressing views critical of the government were sometimes subjected to arrest, threats, or intimidation. The public Police were reported to have raided the workplaces and homes of journalists and seized telephones, laptops, and other devices. This was a violation of HRs and freedom of the press. There were also reports of terrorists and extremists perpetrating killings, violence, and intimidation against journalists critical of the government (US Department of State, 2023). According to Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2023, “authorities intensified efforts to silence civil society activists and independent journalists by using politically motivated criminal charges, including terrorism, to jail those exposing or criticizing government abuses. The government used foreign funding regulations and allegations of financial irregularities to harass rights groups, political opponents, and others. Authorities also continued to stop activists and journalists critical of the government, from traveling abroad”. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in its 2023 World Press Freedom Index found “the violence against journalists, the political partisan media, and the concentration of media ownership all demonstrate that press freedom is in crisis in the world’s largest democracy” (US Department of State, 2023).

As far as the freedom of expression is concerned, independent media were active and generally expressed a wide variety of views, including those critical of the government, though some outlets faced increasing restrictions. The law prohibited content that could harm religious sentiments or provoke enmity among groups, and authorities invoked these provisions to restrict print media; broadcast media; digital media platforms, including streaming services; and publication or distribution of books. Mutilation or defacement of the national flag was punishable by up to three years of imprisonment. On February 14, the Income Tax Department conducted a 60-hour search of the BBC’s Delhi and Mumbai offices. The search came shortly after the January release of a BBC documentary that alleged Prime Minister Modi played a role as then Chief Minister of Gujarat during the 2002 riots in the state in which more than 2,000 died, mainly Muslims. Although tax authorities described the search as motivated by irregularities in the BBC’s tax payments and ownership structure, officials also searched and seized equipment from journalists who were not involved in the organization’s financial processes (US Department of State, 2023).

The government invoked emergency powers to ban screening of the documentary, forced media companies to remove links to the video, and detained student protesters who organized viewing parties. News organizations in the country alleged financial regulations governing media organizations were complicated and fast-changing, rendering it difficult to achieve full compliance. This enabled the government, in their view, to selectively enforce these regulations when news organizations were critical of the government. There were multiple reports of journalists and human rights activists being investigated in JandK, with at least 35 journalists reporting facing assaults, police interrogations, raids, fabricated cases, and restrictions on movement since 2019(US Department of State, 2023). On March 20, Human Rights Watch stated the 2021 arrest of Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj by the National Investigation Agency was emblematic of the continuing pattern of repression of human rights defenders and journalists in JandK under the UAPA. The NGO RFK Human Rights continued to call for the release of Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez, also arrested in 2021, who remained imprisoned as of December 4. Press reported journalist Fahad Shah, who was arrested in 2022 was released on bail on November 23. The High Court of JandK stated the Special Investigation Agency lacked evidence to try Shah for terrorism (US Department of State, 2023).

Regarding violence and harassment are concerned, there were reports from journalists and NGOs that government officials at local and national levels intimidated media outlets through physical harassment and attacks, pressuring owners, targeting sponsors, encouraging frivolous lawsuits, blocking communication services in some areas, such as mobile telephones and the internet, and constraining freedom of movement. NGOs alleged criminal prosecutions and investigations were used to intimidate journalists critical of the government. Online and mobile harassment was prevalent, and reports of internet trolling continued to rise, particularly targeting women journalists. In some instances, police used information provided by anonymous social media users as a pretext to initiate criminal proceedings against journalists (US Department of State, 2023). The RSF 2023 World Press Freedom Index described the country as “one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the media,” with an average of three to four journalists killed in connection with their work every year by police, political activists, criminal groups, and local officials. Violence against journalists, an increasingly politically partisan media landscape, and the concentration of media ownership in the hands of government-allied business interests constituted a press freedom “crisis” in the world’s largest democracy, the RSF report stated. It noted reporters in Kashmir were often harassed by police and paramilitaries, and some were subjected to “provisional” detention for up to several years (US Department of State, 2023).

On May 3, police arrested and detained freelance journalist Sakshi Joshi as she covered a protest by wrestlers in Delhi. Women officers shoved Joshi and tore her clothes before pushing her into a police bus. Police held Joshi for approximately one hour, then released her without charge. Media bodies called for strict action against the police officers involved in the incident. On May 22, Manipur state security forces allegedly assaulted three journalists such as Soram Inaoba and Nongthombam Johnson from Mami TV and Brahmacharimayum Dayananda from news agency ANI for recording footage of riots and arson. Security forces dragged the journalists from a building, tore their clothes, and beat them with batons. Manipur authorities claimed the journalists threw stones at a government-operated drone, which the journalists denied (US Department of State, 2023).

Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media:

The press and other media sometimes enjoyed editorial independence, but the government restricted content based on broad public and national interest provisions. Civil society organizations expressed concern that pro government business interests buying stakes in media organizations could compromise media independence. Press and other media reportedly practiced self-censorship due to fear of government reprisals. On January 17, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology introduced an amendment to its Information Technology Rules of 2021 that gave authority to the government’s Press Information Bureau to determine the veracity of news reports and order the removal of “fake” or objectionable content. The amendment entered into effect in April (US Department of State, 2023). The government maintained a monopoly on AM radio stations, limiting broadcasting to the state-owned All India Radio, and restricted FM radio licenses to entertainment and educational content. State governments banned the import or sale of selected books that contained material government officials deemed inflammatory or as having potential to provoke communal or religious tensions. On July 29, political analyst Badri Seshadri was arrested in Chennai by Tamil Nadu police for comments in a YouTube video criticizing the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, for the court’s actions related to curtailing the violence in Manipur (US Department of State, 2023).

Regarding libel/slander laws, these were criminal offenses. The government used laws to restrict public discussion and retaliate against journalists, members of marginalized groups, and political opponents. In July, media reported Maharashtra police filed more than 600 cases of libel and slander in the last two years against social media users for offensive religious content. In June, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a case filed by X (formerly Twitter) in 2022 against the government regarding its order to block certain social media accounts. The court order also imposed a fine for noncompliance of government orders (US Department of State, 2023). As far as national security is concerned, authorities cited laws against terrorism or protecting national security to arrest or punish critics of the government. On July 8, Manipur police filed sedition charges against a three-member fact-finding team of the National Federation of Indian Women for describing violence in Manipur as “state-sponsored” after their visit to Imphal. The Supreme Court granted the accused interim protection from arrest on July 11. Media watchdog groups expressed concern regarding the “excessive” use of the UAPA against journalists. On March 20, the National Investigation Agency arrested Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj on terrorism-financing charges filed under the UAPA. The agency identified Mehraj as working in association with the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society to spread a “secessionist agenda” in the region (US Department of State, 2023).

Regarding the internet freedom is concerned, the government restricted and disrupted access to the internet and censored online content; there were also reports the government frequently monitored users of digital media such as chat rooms and person-to-person communications. The law permitted the government to block internet sites and content and criminalized sending messages the government deemed inflammatory or offensive. Both the central government and state governments had the power to issue directives for blocking, intercepting, monitoring, or decrypting computer information. Court rulings and laws specified conditions and procedures required for the suspension of internet access. Civil society organizations asserted authorities did not consistently meet these requirements (US Department of State, 2023). The government repeatedly imposed internet shutdowns and blocked telecommunications, including the internet in certain regions, particularly during periods of political unrest. The Internet Freedom Foundation and Human Rights Watch published a report “No Internet Means No Work, No Pay, No Food” – Internet Shutdowns Deny Access to Basic Rights in “Digital India” in June. The report noted consistent disregard for the Supreme Court’s directions that internet access should only be suspended in unavoidable situations and shutdown orders should be published. The report listed 127 instances of internet shutdowns from December 2019 to December 2022. During this period, 18 states shut down the internet at least once, and 11 did not publish shutdowns orders (US Department of State, 2023).

In some cases, government authorities cited laws protecting national interest to justify media content restrictions. More than 150 websites and YouTube-based news channels were taken down by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting since 2021 for producing “anti-India” content. On March 28, Punjab authorities suspended the social media accounts of several journalists and media organizations in Punjab, including the BBC’s Punjabi service. These suspensions came as part of broader blackouts on internet services and social media activity as authorities conducted a manhunt for Amritpal Singh, leader of Waris Punjab De, a Sikh-political group supportive of the Khalistan movement. Police restored access to the suspended accounts several days later. Media bodies expressed deep concern over this “arbitrary” suspension of these social media handles, saying no due processes were followed and the suspensions were carried out against the principles of natural justice (US Department of State, 2023). Despite the ruling of the Manipur High Court, internet shutdowns continued in Manipur as of November 15. The internet was completely cut off in the state on May 3 after the escalation of ethnic conflict, and the cut off was extended through multiple government orders. The ban was partially lifted in subsequent months, largely for government officials and broadband users, but mobile internet services, social media websites, and virtual private network services remained suspended for most individuals as of November 15. Human rights organizations criticized the state-wide internet ban. For example, Amnesty International stated the blackout prevented the world from “seeing the true extent of the serious human rights violations” taking place in Manipur. On July 20, the National Commission for Women cited privacy concerns as it directed X (formerly Twitter) to remove a video showing two Manipur women being paraded naked and sexually assaulted by a group of men (US Department of State, 2023).

The government developed the Centralized Monitoring System, which allowed government agencies to monitor electronic communications in real time. There were no requirements for authorities to receive a judicial order before conducting monitoring, but they were required to obtain an order from the Ministry of Home Affairs or the state-level equivalent to the ministry. A Ministry of Home Affairs committee was required to meet every two months to review intercept orders granted under emergency provisions, which were limited to a maximum of 180 days (US Department of State, 2023).

b) Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association:

The law provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association. While the government regularly respected the right of freedom of assembly, the government sometimes limited freedom of association, especially for members of civil society organizations, minority groups, human rights defenders, and those critical of the government (US Department of State, 2023). As far as freedom of peaceful assembly are concerned, the law provided for freedom of assembly. Authorities often required permits and notification before parades or demonstrations, and local governments generally respected the right to peacefully assemble and express opinions. NGOs reported those protesting against government policies or laws faced restrictions, reprisals, or actions from law enforcement. In JandK, the state government sometimes denied permits for public gatherings to political parties advocating for separatism, and security forces reportedly detained and assaulted members of political groups engaged in peaceful protest. During periods of civil unrest in JandK, authorities used the law to ban public assemblies and impose curfews (US Department of State, 2023).

In March, police conducted a manhunt for Waris Punjab De leader Amritpal Singh after he was accused by police of attempted murder, obstruction of law enforcement, and creating “disharmony” in society. During the manhunt, authorities deployed thousands of paramilitary police and restricted internet and mobile messaging services for nearly 30 million individuals across the Punjab state. Authorities reportedly arrested more than 200 persons while conducting the search for Singh. On April 23, Singh surrendered to police and was arrested under the National Security Act. He remained in the Dibrugarh central jail in Assam as of December 1(US Department of State, 2023). Civil society organizations noted the use of internet and text messaging restrictions was harmful to the broader population of Punjab. Organizations noted the government also used a section of the criminal code, which prohibited gatherings of four or more persons, and charged those in violation with rioting. In July, the government permitted a march in Srinagar, the main city of Kashmir, allowing Shia Muslims to mark the religious Muharram event. This procession represented the first government-sanctioned recognition of the event in Srinagar since it was banned in 1989. The government imposed some restrictions on the use of slogans or the display of logos of any banned organizations. Some human rights activists alleged law enforcement denied their right to assemble and hold discussions and issued letters requesting for events to be cancelled (US Department of State, 2023).

Regarding the freedom of association is concerned, the law provided for freedom of association, but the government increased monitoring and regulation of foreign funding for NGOs and limited which organizations could receive licensing to operate. Civil society organizations criticized the government for creating a restrictive operating environment, citing the difficulty human rights organizations experienced receiving foreign funds under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). Affected organizations reported the government suspended foreign banking licenses or froze accounts of organizations that allegedly received foreign funding without prior authorization or that unlawfully mixed foreign and domestic funding, making it harder for those organizations monitoring or investigating human rights conditions to do their work. In March, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the UAPA criminalizing passive membership in a banned organization. The decision reversed three 2011 Supreme Court cases that distinguished between active and passive membership in banned organizations (US Department of State, 2023).

c) Freedom of Religion:

For this purpose, the US Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report ,2023 of India was divided into four sections. The section 1 deals Religious Demography, section II deals Status of Government Respect for Religious Freedom, section III deals Status of Societal Respect for Religious Freedom and section IV deals U.S. Government Policy and Engagement. However, the executive summary of this report says that the constitution of India provides for freedom of conscience and the right of all individuals to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion; mandates a secular state; requires the state to treat all religions impartially; and prohibits discrimination based on religion. It also states citizens must practice their faith in a way that does not adversely affect public order, morality, or health. Ten of 28 states have laws restricting religious conversions for all faiths. Some of these states also impose penalties specifically against forced religious conversions for the purpose of marriage. During the year, some members of religious minority groups challenged the government’s ability and willingness to protect them from violence, investigate crimes against members of religious minority groups, and protect their freedom of religion or belief (International Religious Freedom Report, 2023)

d) Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country:

The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation. The government generally respected these rights, although civil society organizations reported there were instances where the government prohibited these rights. As far as in-country movement was concerned, the central government relaxed restrictions on travel by foreigners to Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, and parts of JandK, excluding foreign nationals from Pakistan, China, and Burma. The Ministry of Home Affairs and state governments required citizens to obtain special permits when traveling to certain states. Inner Line Permits were required in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Manipur. Regarding the foreign travel, the government could legally deny a passport to any applicant for engaging in activities outside the country “prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation” (US Department of State, 2023).

e) Protection of Refugees:

Although the country did not have a specific law to govern policy toward refugees, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported it worked in close coordination with the government and other humanitarian organizations in providing minimal protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, and asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern. UNHCR cited a recent increase in asylum seekers requesting registration and assistance that it attributed to violence and instability in neighboring countries. UNHCR maintained formal partnership agreements with nine national NGOs operating in the country (US Department of State, 2023). The UNHCR reported more than 13,078 Afghan refugees and asylum seekers registered with the agency and 30,313 refugees and asylum seekers from Burma. As of July, the government was providing protection and assistance to 91,534 refugees from Sri Lanka and 72,291 from Tibet. Both central and state governments assisted and provided protection for new refugees and asylum seekers. In 2021, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced an emergency e-visa for Afghan nationals seeking emergency entry into India after the Taliban takeover and indicated that no Afghan national would be required to leave the country without prior approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to a 2021 parliamentary inquiry, the government reportedly issued approximately 200 of these emergency visas out of tens of thousands of applications. Refugees in the country received the constitutional protections that were afforded to noncitizens. In many cases, refugees and asylum seekers under UNHCR’s mandate reported increased obstacles to regularizing their status through long-term visas and residence permits (US Department of State, 2023).

Regarding access to asylum is concerned, the law did not provide for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had not established a system for providing protection to refugees. Absent a legal framework, the government sometimes granted asylum on a situational basis on humanitarian grounds in accordance with international law. This approach resulted in varying standards of protection for different refugee and asylum-seeker groups. The government recognized refugees from Tibet and Sri Lanka and generally respected UNHCR decisions on refugee status determination for individuals from other countries(US Department of State, 2023). As far as refoulement is concerned, the government advocated for the return of refugees to Burma. According to UNHCR, at least 26 non-Rohingya refugees (of an estimated 40,000) had been deported since late 2016, with no known reports of deportation during the year. As far as abuse of refugees and asylum seekers are concerned, the law did not contain the term “refugee,” treating refugees as any other foreigner. Undocumented physical presence in the country was a criminal offense. Persons without documentation were vulnerable to detention, forced returns, and abuse. The country historically treated persons as refugees based on the merits and circumstances of the cases (US Department of State, 2023).

NGOs reported law enforcement officials harassed and intimidated Rohingya refugees, including by confiscating UNHCR-issued refugee cards and government identification documents. On July 18, JandK police allegedly shot at and tear-gassed a group of approximately 200 Rohingya refugees at a detention center in Jammu. The refugees were on a hunger strike to protest their detention since 2021. Officials said six police personnel and 10 Rohingyas were injured. The family of a girl age five months alleged she died due to inhalation of smoke from the teargas shells lobbed at the protesters. Police and holding center officials denied the claims and alleged the girl died from illness. Media reports showed pictures of the girl’s parents being brought in handcuffs for her burial. Senior police and prison officials said they had no information regarding the use of handcuffs and their staff were not involved. UNHCR continued to advocate for the release of detained refugees, for asylum seekers to freely move within the country and have their claims assessed, and for refugees to receive protection in the state where they arrived, and which had jurisdiction over them (US Department of State, 2023).

As far as freedom of movement is concerned, there were reports of undue restrictions on the freedom of movement for refugees and asylum seekers. There were reports of refugees being arrested or detained for not having appropriate paperwork. Police reportedly sometimes required refugees to return temporarily to camps on short notice, particularly during elections. Tamil Nadu had 107 refugee camps across the state, including one detention camp for refugees with criminal records. Sri Lankan refugees were permitted to work in Tamil Nadu. Between January 1 and June 30, Tripura police arrested 354 “illegal immigrants,” including 52 Rohingyas who entered the state without valid documents. On July 24, the UP police antiterrorism squad arrested 74 Rohingyas, including 55 men, 14 women, and five children, as part of a drive to identify illegal immigrants. There were no restrictions on the movement of Tibetan refugees (US Department of State, 2023). As far as employment is concerned, most UNHCR registered refugees found employment in the informal sector, similar to members of their host communities; however, some refugees reported discrimination by employers and landlords. According to UNHCR, obtaining formal employment was difficult for refugees because they did not possess government-issued documents such as long-term visas, which the government stopped issuing to refugees in 2017. Regarding the access to basic services concerned, refugees and asylum seekers had access to housing, primary and secondary education, and health care. In cases where refugees were denied access, it was often due to a lack of knowledge of refugee rights by the service provider. Regarding the durable solutions are concerned, a ferry project jointly proposed by the government and the government of Sri Lanka for the repatriation of refugees remained on hold. Departures for voluntary repatriation, third country resettlement, and complementary pathways continued (US Department of State, 2023).

f) Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPS):

Settlements of internally displaced persons existed throughout the Indian country. According to 2022 data from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, there were 2.5 million persons living in protracted displacement due to natural disasters and 631,000 persons living in protracted displacement due to historical violence and conflict, nearly half of whom were in JandK. National policy or legislation did not address the matter of internal displacement resulting from armed clashes or from ethnic or communal violence. The welfare of IDPs was generally the purview of state governments and local authorities, and there were reports of gaps in services and poor accountability (US Department of State, 2023). The central government provided limited assistance to IDPs but allowed NGOs and human rights organizations access to some IDPs; neither access nor assistance was standard for all IDPs or all situations. Precise numbers of those displaced by violence were difficult to obtain. While authorities registered residents of camps, an unknown number of displaced persons resided outside the camps. According to an April 27 media report, most eligible Bru families that fled Mizoram due to ethnic tensions in 1997 were resettled in 12 designated areas in Tripura. According to Tripura government officials, a total of 6,159 families comprising 37,136 Bru individuals were eligible to be resettled in the state (US Department of State, 2023). According to a January 11 media report, more than 55,000 Guti Koya, an indigenous group native to Chhattisgarh(state) were displaced by the violence of Salwa Judum, an allegedly state-backed militia, and they continued to live in the forest areas of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as IDPs. The report claimed they were not permitted to own land and were denied “Scheduled Tribe” status, which could have made them eligible for statutory benefits (US Department of State, 2023).

g) Stateless Persons:

The administration of nationality laws and difficulties related to birth registration contributed to statelessness. By law parents conferred citizenship, and birth in the country did not automatically result in citizenship. Any person born in the country on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987, obtained citizenship by birth. A child born in the country on or after July 1, 1987, obtained citizenship if either parent was a citizen at the time of the child’s birth. Authorities considered those born in the country on or after December 3, 2004, citizens only if at least one parent was a citizen and the other was not illegally present in the country at the time of the child’s birth (US Department of State, 2023). Authorities considered persons born outside the country on or after December 10, 1992, citizens if either parent was a citizen at the time of birth, but authorities did not consider those born outside the country after December 3, 2004, citizens unless their birth was registered at a consulate within one year of the date of birth. Authorities could also confer citizenship through registration in specific categories and via naturalization for individuals residing in the country for 12 years. Children born in Sri Lankan refugee camps received birth certificates. While these certificates alone did not entitle refugees to citizenship, refugees could present birth certificates to the Sri Lankan High Commission to obtain a consular birth certificate, which entitled them to pursue Sri Lankan citizenship (US Department of State, 2023).

Section 3: Freedom to Participate in the Political Process

The constitution provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage for all citizens age 18 and older. This is analysed below.

Elections and Political Participation:

Regarding, abuses or irregularities in recent elections, national elections were widely reported to be free and fair, and without abuses and irregularities. State-level elections took place during the year in Tripura, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Karnataka, Mizoram, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Telangana. The elections were considered free and fair. In September, media reported political parties used disinformation and harassment campaigns on social media to influence election results (US Department of State, 2023). As far as political parties and political participation are concerned, while there were no restrictions placed on the formation of political parties or on individuals of any community from participating in the election process, there were obstacles reported by members of opposition political parties, including reprisals for criticism of government officials or policies, disinformation attacks, and inability to use social media freely for campaigning. The election law banned the use of government resources for political campaigning, and the Election Commission effectively enforced the law. The commission’s guidelines banned opinion polls 48 hours prior to an election and the release of exit poll results until completion of the last phase (in a multiphase election). There were reports of electoral violence, principally in West Bengal state elections, where 52 persons were reported killed in the context of rural council elections that took place on July 8(US Department of State, 2023).

On March 23, opposition Congress Party leader and Member of Parliament Rahul Gandhi was convicted and sentenced to two years of prison by a court in Gujarat, under charges of defamation related to remarks he made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the 2019 general election campaign. The case was filed by BJP legislator Purnesh Modi, who alleged Gandhi had defamed all persons with the surname “Modi” when he asked why “all thieves have Modi as [their] common surname”. The two-year sentence given for the conviction, the maximum permissible for the crime, also led to Gandhi’s automatic suspension from serving as a member of parliament (US Department of State, 2023).

Members of the Congress Party and activists criticized the conviction and resulting suspension, and questioned whether the charges could be considered defamation when such charges were actionable if defamation occurred against a specific individual rather than comments regarding a generic class of persons. The conviction, if applied, would have disqualified Gandhi from holding any public office and made him ineligible to contest the 2024 general elections, which the opposition noted was an attempt by the BJP to prevent “the leading face of the opposition” and the Congress Party from freely participating in the electoral process (US Department of State, 2023). On August 4, the Supreme Court suspended Gandhi’s March conviction on the grounds that the lower courts did not offer any reason for the imposition of the maximum sentence. The Supreme Court observed that public figures were expected to exercise caution while making public speeches and that Gandhi ought to have been more careful. On August 7, Gandhi was reinstated as a member of parliament. Regarding the participation of women and members of marginalized or vulnerable groups are concerned, religious, cultural, and traditional practices were barriers to women’s proportional participation in political institutions. In September, parliament passed the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, known as the Women’s Reservation Bill. The law reserves 33 percent of the seats in the lower house of parliament and state legislative assemblies for women(US Department of State, 2023).

CONCLUSION:

Some public officials were also involved in the violation of HRs in India. This was very unfortunate and they should be punished by the law. So, the government of India and the concerned state governments have to be strictly protect the HRs from all types of offenders people. The government partially failed to implement properly the National Security Act and the Public Safety Act, which had resulted HRs violations happened. The HRR- India report mentioned that the civil society organizations expressed concern that the central government used the UAPA to target and arbitrarily detain human rights activists, members of minority groups, and journalists under the guise of national security. Moreover, they also criticized the arrests of Kappan and Rahman under UAPA as arbitrary and attributed their arrests to their Muslim identities and activism for marginalized groups. There were reports that the government had engaged in transnational repression against journalists, members of diaspora populations, civil society activists, and human rights defenders. There were numerous reports that the government evicted persons from their places of residence, seized their property, or bulldozed homes and shops without due process or adequate restitution, citing illegalities in municipal rules and regulations. There were reports that government security forces committed extrajudicial killings in JandK. Moreover, according to human rights groups, police some times refused to release bodies. Local human rights organizations, minority political parties, and affected communities criticized the national government for the delayed action to stop the ethnic conflict violence and provide humanitarian assistance in Manipur(state) in India.

The report also mentioned that media organizations and individual journalists expressing views critical of the government were sometimes subjected to arrest, threats, or intimidation. Moreover, press freedom is in crisis in the world’s largest democracy of India. In fact, India is declared as “one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the media” with an average of three to four journalists killed in connection with their work every year by police, political activists, criminal groups, and local officials. The government restricted and disrupted access to the internet and censored online content; there were also reports the government frequently monitored users of digital media such as chat rooms and person-to-person communications. These are the violations of human rights from the some of public administration officials’ side in India. The governments have to be protect the HRs from the all types of offender people and the governments though its public officials should not be violate the HRs like the private people do. So, the governments both at the central, states and the UTs governments level have to be implement the rule of law strictly in order to be avoid the violations of HRs occurrence in India.

REFERENCES

1. Damian O. Odunze. (2018). Human Rights in Africa. In Ali Farazmand (ed.).Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Cham. Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

2. The European Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2025). What are Fundamental Rights. https://fra.europa.eu/en/content/what-are-fundamental-rights

3. Franke Wilmer.(2018). Human Rights in the Twenty-First Century. In Ali Farazmand(ed.).Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Cham. Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

4. OHCHR.(2024). What are Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/what-are-human-rights

5. US Department of State.(2023). India 2023 Human Rights Report. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor .https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/india/

6. US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.(2024). 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. April 22. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices

7. International Religious Freedom Report.(2023). 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: India. United States Department of State. Office of International Religious Freedom. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/india/

Received on 24.01.2025 Revised on 11.06.2025

Accepted on 13.09.2025 Published on 07.11.2025

Available online from November 20, 2025

Res. J. of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025;16(4):333-348.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2025.00055

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.