UN HUMAN RIGHTS EXPERTS CHALLENGE INDIA’S PROTEST CRACKDOWN, DEMAND END TO EXCESSIVE FORCE AND DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE
October 21, 2026
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 21: United Nations-appointed human rights experts have called on Indian authorities to end the alleged excessive use of force against protesters, withdraw blanket restrictions on public assemblies and refrain from misusing digital surveillance technologies, including biometric monitoring and internet disruptions.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, around two dozen independent experts urged the authorities to launch an independent investigation into the handling of recent demonstrations across India. They expressed concern that protesters had sustained injuries and that some had reported being subjected to ill-treatment during police action.
The experts referred to demonstrations organised by opposition political parties and student groups in recent weeks demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The protests concern the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which demonstrators allege favours Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The experts said law enforcement agencies had reportedly used force against unarmed students, including baton charges, despite the non-violent nature of the assemblies. They also raised concerns that thousands of people had been prevented from joining the demonstrations.
Their statement called for an immediate end to excessive force, the withdrawal of blanket bans on assemblies and safeguards against the misuse of digital surveillance and internet restrictions.
The controversy extends beyond the current protests over electoral rolls. Mass demonstrations also took place during the summer over examination-paper leaks, intensifying public pressure on the authorities and eventually leading to the resignation of India’s education minister.
At the centre of the latest political dispute is the removal of names from electoral rolls. Protest organisers claim that approximately 130 million names were removed, potentially disenfranchising eligible voters, particularly among poor and homeless communities and religious minorities, including Muslims.
The BJP and the Election Commission have rejected these allegations. The poll panel has maintained that the revision aims to remove duplicate entries, names of deceased persons, voters who have shifted residence and other ineligible entries. It has also said that people wrongly excluded from the rolls can pursue appeals.
India has repeatedly rejected international criticism of its handling of domestic affairs, describing such interventions as interference in the country’s internal matters. Earlier this month, the United Nations human rights office had also expressed concern over mass detentions connected with the protests.
The Indian government has maintained that law enforcement agencies acted strictly in accordance with the law. The Indian embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment on the latest statement, according to the report.
The crackdown has also drawn criticism from international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The UN-appointed experts operate independently of the United Nations as an organisation, although they are mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to monitor and document specific human rights concerns.
Their intervention places renewed international attention on the balance between public order and the rights to peaceful assembly and expression. The central questions concern the proportionality of police action, restrictions on demonstrations and the use of digital tools by authorities during periods of political dissent.
The dispute over electoral-roll revision remains unresolved, with the Election Commission defending its procedures and protesting groups continuing to demand accountability. The experts’ appeal adds to calls for an independent examination of the authorities’ conduct and for safeguards protecting peaceful demonstrators from excessive force and unjustified restrictions.
