Concluding Remarks during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of India in the 41^st session of the UPR Working Group (7-18 November 2022) delivered by H.E. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Learned Solicitor General of India, Head of the Delegation

[Geneva, 10^th November 2022]

Thank you, Mr. President.

Excellencies, and

Distinguished delegates,

Let me take this opportunity to thank you all for your participation in India's 4^th UPR. We have heard and taken careful note of your comments, queries and recommendations.

2.  I have already responded to some of the issues raised by the Member States during my previous intervention. I will try to respond to as many remaining issues as possible within the limited time available.

3.  So far as the question concerning torture and enforced disappearances is concerned, let me underline that India condemns any form of torture and maintains an inviolable stand against arbitrary detention, torture, rape or sexual violence by anyone.

4.  The Constitution of India guarantees to every person the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court of India has interpreted to include the right to live with dignity.

5.  India is a signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and remains committed to ratifying the Conventions.

6.  The 273^rd Report of the Law Commission of India has provided its recommendations on the implementation of Convention along with the draft "Prevention of Torture Bill". Since the subject falls under the Concurrent List, under our Constitution, the Central Government needs to take into account the opinion of States in this regard. The recommendation and the draft have been circulated to all the State Governments and Union Territories for their comments.

7.  Further, the existing legal framework in India, such as provisions under the Constitution, Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure among others, guarantees adequate protection against any form of arbitrary detention, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

8.  As remedial measure against torture, Courts in India have recognised victims’ compensation; and in some instances, Courts and the National Human Rights Commission have even directed payment of compensation, to which the State has duly complied.

***

As regards the freedom of speech and expression is concerned, the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Like any other freedom, the freedom of speech and expression is not absolute in nature and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

2.  As is evident, these restrictions are conceived to protect national and public interest and are required to meet a very high threshold. They are in consonance with Article 19(3) of the ICCPR. Being a fundamental right, any restriction imposed is amenable to judicial review by the Constitutional Courts, including by directly approaching the Supreme Court of India.

3.  Imposing reasonable restrictions enables the State to regulate freedom of speech and expression, when it amounts to “hate speech” or leads to “incitement to an offence”. Nevertheless, it is a settled law in India that any restrictions imposed must not be excessive or disproportionate.

4.  For instance, the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, in the year 2015, struck down the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as vague, unconstitutional and imposing unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression.

***

So far as the citizenship Amendment Act 2019 is concerned, it is a limited and focused legislation, which reaffirms India’s commitment to the welfare of persecuted minorities in the region. This is similar to laws that exist elsewhere in defining specific criterion for citizenship pathways. The criteria defined here is specific to India and its neighbourhood and takes into account the historical context and the current ground realities.

2.  It is aimed at enabling foreigners of six minority communities (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian community) from three specified neighbouring countries who have migrated to India, owing to their religious persecution in those countries, to obtain Indian citizenship.

3.  It will help in reducing their statelessness and would enable beneficiaries to have a more secure and dignified life.

4.  This Act neither takes away citizenship of any Indian citizen nor amends nor abridges any existing process for acquiring Indian citizenship by any foreigner of any country belonging to any faith or religion.

***

So far as legislations concerning anti-terrorism and National security laws like UAPA are concerned, I would like to begin by saying that we have been facing terrorism for several decades. The State has a responsibility to protect its own citizens against terrorist acts.

2.  We have enacted legislations like, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, National Security Act, to deal with the menace of terrorism and to protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.

3.  These legislations have been enacted to secure a balance between the liberty of citizens and the security of the state. They have adequate safeguards against misuse.

4.  Operation of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is periodically reviewed by the Government of India after consultation with the State Government and the Central Agencies, based upon the ground situation. Due to the improved security situation, the said Act was withdrawn completely from the State of Tripura in May 2015; and from the State of Meghalaya in April 2018. Further, in April 2022 it was withdrawn from 23 districts in Assam, partially from seven districts in Nagaland and six districts in Manipur. These decisions are taken based upon the prevailing circumstances in each of the disturbed areas, in order to protect the rights of the citizens.

Mr. President,

Excellencies, and

Distinguished delegates,

There were also observations, comments and recommendations related to key economic, social and cultural rights. India attaches high importance to implementation of these rights. Besides my Opening Remarks, brief statements made by representatives of various Ministries of the Government of India, have outlined the initiatives that we have taken to fulfill our obligations in respect of these rights, including our success in meeting Sustainable Development Goals and creating an inclusive economy and society.

Mr. President,

Our participation in UPR has been informed by our democratic spirit. My delegation from different Ministries and Departments of the Government will be returning with renewed commitment and new ideas for further strengthening our institutional, legislative and administrative framework for better protection and promotion of human rights of our people. We are aware of the challenges but remain steadfast to realize this goal.

I thank you for your participation and kind attention.  I now invite our Vice Minister, Ministry of External Affairs, Mr. Sanjay Verma for our Closing Remarks.

*****