India: Activists and journalists continued to be targeted around elections despite UN Human Rights Committee scrutiny

India’s civic space is rated as ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor. In recent years, the government has misused the draconian anti-terror Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other laws to keep activists behind bars and fabricate cases against activists and journalists for undertaking their work. The authorities have blocked access to foreign funding for NGOs, using the restrictive Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), and human rights defenders and journalists in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir continue to be targeted.

In June 2024, the election outcome was announced following a six-week-long election. The governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi won 240 seats, falling short of the 272-mark that signifies a majority in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of India’s Parliament, which has 543 seats in all. Despite the weaker majority than expected, the BPJ with its allies still secured a majority, winning 293 seats, giving Modi a third term in office. The opposition INDIA alliance, led by the Indian National Congress party, won 232 seats.

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), Modi’s electoral campaign frequently used hate speech against Muslims and other minorities. The leadership of Modi’s Hindu majoritarian BJP party repeatedly made statements inciting discrimination, hostility and violence against marginalised groups during his campaign.

On 1st July 2024, new criminal laws came into effect. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been implemented in place of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882. According to Amnesty International some provisions in the new laws “would have debilitating consequences on the effective realisation of the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and fair trial.”

The UN Human Rights Committee conducted a detailed review of India's fourth periodic report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 15th and 16th July 2024. Prior to the review CIVICUS made a submission to the Committee on civic space issues. During the review the Committee raised concerns about India’s legal framework, noting various legislative and administrative actions undermining these rights including the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) . It also raised issues of restrictions to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and attacks on NGOs and human rights defenders. This was also reflected in the Concluding Observations.

In recent months, renowned author Arundhati Roy and an academic are facing prosecution for their 2010 speeches while attacks and prosecution of journalists persist. Cable operators blocked news channels in the Andhra Pradesh state post-election while a draft broadcast bill raised fears of censorship and press suppression. Human rights defenders including Ibrahim Dafadar, Suneeta Pottam and Kaladas Dehariya faced judicial harassment. Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez has been arbitrarily detained for 1,000 days as repression in the region continues. Activist Gautam Navlakha was granted bail but other Bhima Koregaon activists still remain in detention.

Expression

Offence similar to sedition remains in new penal code

The new Indian Penal Code passed in July 2024 has retained offences similar to sedition in Section 124A of the old Penal Code, despite criticism from human rights groups.

Section 152 of the new Penal Code refrains from using the word sedition and re-characterises the offence as ‘acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India’.

The net cast by the insertion of the phrase endangering ‘sovereignty, unity and integrity of India’ could be wide and misused as the law doesn’t set out a list of activities that could be seen as a threat to sovereignty or unity and integrity of the country or even provide an illustration to demonstrate what could be construed as such a threat.

Another change implemented is the inclusion of the terms ‘electronic communication’ and ‘financial means’, both of which are tools that can be used to incite secession, armed rebellion or separatism and penalised under Section 152. Additionally, the term of punishment under Section 152 has been increased from three to seven years.

Renowned author and academic facing prosecution for 2010 speeches

On 14th June 2024, the authorities granted permission for the prosecution of the novelist and activist Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, a former professor at the Central University of Kashmir, under Section 45 of the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with a 2010 event. Roy and Hussain are accused of ‘delivering provocative speeches in public’.

The 2010 report alleged that Roy and Hussain made provocative speeches at a conference organised under the banner of “Azadi – The Only Way” in October 2010 at LTG Auditorium, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi. According to Lieutenant governor of Delhi, Vinai Kumar Saxena, who sanctioned the prosecution, “the issues discussed and spoken about at the conference propagated the separation of Kashmir from India”. Saxena is a politician from prime minister Narendra Modi’s ruling BJP.

PEN America said: “We condemn the escalatory tactics used against Arundhati Roy. This case demonstrates all too clearly how protracted legal harassment, now coupled with the threat of charges under the repressive UAPA law, can be used to inflict great professional and personal suffering for the simple act of free expression.”

The UN Human Rights Office said: “We are concerned by the use of UAPA anti-terror law to silence critics” and “urge authorities to drop cases against Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain over comments on India-administrated Kashmir.”

Attacks and prosecution of journalists

There were continued reports of the attacks and prosecution of journalists for undertaking their work.

In May 2024, journalist Raghav Trivedi, who works with the digital outlet Molitics, was beaten up and locked in a room allegedly by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers while covering Union home minister Amit Shah’s rally in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh. Trivedi was taken to hospital for treatment after the attack. According to Trivedi, he asked BJP workers at the rally about the allegation that some women were paid to attend. He was first asked to delete videos of these women and then attacked. Trivedi also confirmed that police who were in the vicinity did not intervene to stop the attack.

The Committee to Protect Journalists CPJ reported that three journalists from The Caravan magazine - Shahid Tantray, Prabhjit Singh, and an unnamed female colleague - who were attacked almost four years ago during the 2020 Delhi riots - discovered in June 2024 that the police had opened an investigation into them on suspicion of promoting communal enmity and outraging the modesty of a woman. The Caravan said that it had not been given a certified copy of the FIR against its staff because of its “sensitive nature” and that was a clear attempt to retaliate against journalists who were themselves the victims of a violent mob.

On 6th July 2024, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), police in Uttar Pradesh opened an investigation into a claim that independent journalists Zakir Ali Tyagi and Wasim Akram Tyagi had incited religious enmity through “malicious” posts on social media platform X alleging that a Muslim resident of Shamli district was killed in a 4th July “mob lynching.” The journalists suggested authorities were trying to help the alleged killers by not classifying the death as a murder. Police say the journalists violated two sections of the new penal code – section 196 for promoting enmity between groups, which is punishable by up to three years in prison, a fine, or both, and section 353 for statements causing public mischief which is punishable by up to three years in prison with or without a fine.

French journalist leaves India after denial of work permit

French reporter Sébastien Farcis, a New Delhi-based South Asia correspondent for multiple French and Belgian news organisations, including Radio France Internationale, Radio France, and Libération, left India on 17th June 2024 after 13 years of reporting, following the government’s refusal to renew a journalism permit to work in the country.

The government did not provide a reason for refusing the permit. Farcis, who is married to an Indian citizen, holds a permanent residency status, known locally as the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) visa. Since March 2021, Indian regulations have mandated that OCI visa holders must obtain permits to work as journalists in India. Farcis said the permit denial has effectively prevented him from practising his profession and cut off his income. Multiple requests to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which issues the journalism permits, went unanswered, and attempts to appeal the decision were unsuccessful.

Cable operators block four news channels in Andhra Pradesh state post-election

According to CPJ, on 6th June 2024, cable operators in India’s Andhra Pradesh state blocked access to four TV news broadcasters - Sakshi TV, TV9, NTV, and 10TV - in connection with their critical reporting of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), which defeated the incumbent Yuvajana Sramika Rythu (YSR) Congress Party in state-level elections.

On 11th June 2024, Parliament member S. Niranjan Reddy, of the YSR Congress Party, wrote a letter to the chairperson of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, raising concerns about the ban. In his letter, he highlighted how such an action violates the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, which ensure fair and non-discriminatory interconnection arrangements among service providers. Reddy also emphasised the impact on press freedom and the public’s right to information.

Draft broadcast bill raises fears of censorship and press suppression

A new draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, has raised significant concerns among digital rights advocates and media organisations, particularly regarding free speech and press freedom.

The secrecy around the bill has also raised questions about the government’s intent. The draft of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill was released to a few select groups in July 2024, but not officially made public.

One major issue highlighted by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is the bill's extension of regulatory frameworks traditionally applied to cable television to over-the-top (OTT) content providers like Netflix and Amazon Prime and "digital news broadcasters" defined as any person who disseminates news and current affairs through online newspapers, news portals, websites and social media intermediaries. The bill compels them to register with the government.

The bill mandates that these platforms create self-regulatory bodies to evaluate content, but with government oversight, potentially leading to censorship, content homogeneity and could impact journalistic freedom. The government retains the power to prohibit content transmission on broad and vague grounds, such as protecting public order or morality, which critics argue could be exploited for political censorship.

Furthermore, the establishment of a Broadcast Advisory Council (BAC) with government-appointed members raises questions about its independence. The BAC would have the authority to review complaints and make recommendations to the government, which could lead to censorship or self-censorship among content creators and journalists. The ability of the government to inspect, intercept, monitor and seize broadcasting equipment further compounds these concerns, potentially stifling journalistic freedom and innovation in the digital media space.

Following criticism, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that a fresh draft bill will be published and it would extend the deadline for stakeholder comments until 15th October 2024.

Association

Judicial harassment against human rights defender Ibrahim Dafadar

There has been ongoing judicial harassment of Ibrahim Dafadar, a 32-year-old human rights defender from the village of Nawdapara, Murshidabad District, West Bengal State. Dafadar is the Secretary of the local Amra Simantabasi committee.

According to the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders on 3rd June 2024, the Amra Simantabasi are resident-based committees representing the interests and defending the rights of the populations living in the areas near the border with Bangladesh. Over the past few years, Dafadar has been engaged in the promotion of social development, the documentation of violations committed by the Border Security Force, and the exposure of local corrupt practices. These activities have made him a target of local politicians and their police associates.

On 10th March 2024, Dafadar received a summons under Section 107 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) through the Bagdah police station, ordering him to appear before the Executive Magistrate of Bongaon District. Section 107 of the CrPC refers to the summoning powers of an Executive Magistrate in cases where there is a well-founded suspicion that a person “is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity”. Dafadar is unaware of any act he may have committed that would constitute such an offence. He believes that the summons constitutes a retaliation for his human rights work.

On 12th March 2024, Mr Dafadar appeared before the Executive Magistrate of Bongaon District and was released after paying a bond.

The use of summons under Section 107 of the CrPC is a well-known practice in West Bengal State to silence dissent and obstruct human rights work. Ahead of events of public interest – such as religious, social, or political events like administrative elections – it is common for both the lower judiciary and the police in the region to issue summons against human rights defenders and critics of local policies with the aim to intimidate them and force them into silence through judicial harassment.

Woman human rights defender Suneeta Pottam violently arrested and charged

On 3rd June 2024, police arrested woman human rights defender Suneeta Pottam from a women’s collective in Raipur, Chhatisgargh state.

According to Front Line Defenders (FLD), at the time of her arrest, Suneeta Pottam had been living in Raipur temporarily in order to prepare for an examination. Bijapur district police forcibly dragged Sunita Pottam out of the residence and forced her into an unmarked vehicle. No warrant was produced at the time of her arrest. The woman human rights defender was reportedly dragged across the floor, slapped and beaten on her legs and thighs. A short while later, the Bijapur Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) returned to the residence and showed her colleagues a warrant for her arrest but refused to provide them with a copy of the document.

The police in their press release have accused Suneeta Pottam of maintaining links with banned Maoist groups and state that they have registered 12 cases against her in three police stations. The offences mentioned are serious, and include murder, attempt to murder, provocative speeches and causing damage to government property. According to FLD, false allegations of militancy and being involved with the banned CPI(M) is a common accusation used to silence and discredit the work of human rights defenders, especially Dalit and indigenous rights defenders in India. So far, five legal cases have been raised before the Bijapur Magistrates Court following her arrest on 3rd June 2024. She remains detained in Jagdalpur jail in Chhatisgargh.

Suneeta Pottam is a woman human rights defender who has campaigned tirelessly against systemic violations against the Adivasi community and to promote the rights of women and girls in Chhattisgargh. She is a member of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Chhattisgarh and has been involved with the Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression (WSS) since 2015.

Activist Mohammad Hussain arrested in Telangana

On 8th July 2024, police officers from the South Indian state of Telangana arrested writer-activist Mohammad Hussain at his residence in Jammikunta in Karimnagar district. The police who arrived at his house were in plainclothes and informed the family that they were undercover and were taking Hussain in for questioning. Later in the evening, Hussain’s family members were informed that he was being arrested and charged under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They accused him of spreading Maoist ideology in the coal belt area by distributing pamphlets.

The Human Rights Forum (HRF) has condemned the arrest, calling it a blatant violation of constitutional rights and demanding his immediate release. HRF representatives urged the state government to uphold democratic principles and address this issue promptly to avoid being perceived as supporting police misconduct.

Hussain, a senior citizen, has been living peacefully for the past fifteen years, and his sudden detention without official notification or justification, has raised serious concerns about constitutional breaches and human rights violations. He was a former central committee member of the banned Maoist Party in Ramakrishnapur, Mancherial district.

Raid and intimidation of trade unionist Kaladas Dehariya

On 25th July 2024, the NIA raided the house of Kaladas Dehariya. He is a popular cultural activist, respected trade unionist, a People’s Union on Civil Liberties (PUCL) national council member and Vice-President of PUCL Chhattisgarh state unit in Bhilai.

According to the PUCL, the NIA showed their disregard for the law and constitutional protections by not disclosing the reasons why they were searching his house, not permitting his lawyers to meet him, not showing the search warrant and not providing the hash value of the electronic items. After four hours of searching his modest house, the NIA left with his phone, a long dead laptop, and a pen drive which had a collection of pamphlets used for different programmes.

The PUCL said that the way the NIA conducted the search was totally illegal as the NIA and other police officials did not follow any of the prescribed procedures during search operations. They added that the raid was aimed at intimidating Kaladas, his family and associates.

Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez arbitrarily detained for 1,000 days

Indian authorities have arbitrarily detained Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez for over 1,000 days. He remains incarcerated in a maximum-security prison in Delhi, India, in reprisal for his human rights work.

Khurram Parvez is the Program Coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), a civil society organisation in Indian-administered Kashmir that has ceased to operate due to repression. He is also the Deputy Secretary-General of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Chairperson of the Asian Federation against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD).

Khurram was arrested in November 2021 by India’s counter-terrorism authority, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), on politically-motivated charges including “waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the government of India” as an act of reprisal for his human rights work. While imprisoned, Indian authorities arrested him again in March 2023 in a separate case on false charges of “terror financing” along with journalist and human rights defender Irfan Mehraj, who also remains arbitrarily detained in a maximum-security prison, now for over 500 days.

Khurram had been imprisoned by Indian authorities previously and has also been harassed and targeted by Indian authorities for years. In September 2016, he was prevented from attending the United Nations Human Rights Council and arbitrarily detained for 76 days.

Repression persists in Jammu and Kashmir

On 31st July 2024, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that the Indian government has not restored freedom of speech and association to Jammu and Kashmir five years after revoking the region’s special autonomous status on 5th August 2019.

According to HRW, the Indian security forces continue to carry out repressive policies including arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and other serious abuses. They have sought to justify abuses by contending that political violence in the region has declined considerably in the past five years, with fewer civilian and security personnel casualties.

Since 2019, religious minorities and migrant workers have faced targeted attacks while hundreds of Kashmiris, including journalists and human rights activists, remain in custody under draconian detention and counterterrorism laws.

The authorities have continued to prosecute prominent civil society activists on apparently politically motivated charges. On 10th July 2024, authorities arrested Nazir Ahmad Ronga, the chairman of Jammu and Kashmir’s High Court Bar Association under the Public Safety Act. In June, they arrested Mian Abdul Qayoom, former president of the association and a vocal critic of government rights abuses, accusing him of murder. Within days, the local administration banned elections in the bar association, allegedly fearing a “breach of peace.”

HRW reported that since August 2019, at least 35 journalists in Kashmir have faced police interrogation, raids, threats, physical assault, restrictions on freedom of movement, or fabricated criminal cases because of their reporting. In June 2024, authorities introduced a policy to protect public officials in the region from alleged false complaints and recommended punishing media publications complicit in spreading misinformation, which raised concerns over government accountability and threats to press freedom.

In June 2024, the Jammu and Kashmir administration terminated four employees ‘in the interest of state security’ citing Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which allows the dismissal of public servants without an inquiry for security reasons.

Gautam Navlakha granted bail but other Bhima Koregaon activists still in detention

On 14th May 2024, the Supreme Court granted bail to Gautam Navlakha involved in the Bhima Koregaon case, arguing that the accused has already undergone four years of incarceration and the trial may take “years and years and years” to complete.

As a precondition to bail, Navlakha was asked to pay 20 lakhs (USD 23,840) for the security expenses incurred during his arrest. This is after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) sent Navlakha a bill of over 1.64 crores (USD 196,800) in March 2024 for the same, which Navlakha’s lawyer termed ‘extortion’.

Gautam Navlakha is a human rights defender and journalist. He was the Secretary of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights, a non-governmental organisation committed to legally defending civil liberties and democratic rights. He has also served as the convener of the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir.

In April 2020, he surrendered to the National Investigation Agency after being charged - together with a group of 16 activists, lawyers, and academics who were arrested under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) - on trumped up charges in relation to violence that broke out in Bhima Koregaon village in Maharashtra state in January 2018. On 19th November 2022, human rights defender Gautam Navlakha was released from jail and placed under house arrest.

While some of those arrested with him in the Bhima Koregaon case have been given bail including Sudha Bharadwaj, Anand Teltumbde, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Varavara Rao and Shoma Sen, eight others remain detained under the UAPA.

They include activists Sudhir Dhawale, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut, Rona Wilson, folksingers Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Gorkhe and Jyoti Jagtap, and academic Hany Babu. Fr Stan Swamy, who was arrested in 2020, passed away while in jail, waiting for bail.

On 6th June 2024, they released a statement from prison, on the completion of 6 years since their arrest, saying their case “has become a living testimony of the fascist surveillant state that India is becoming.”