India has rejected a report by a United Nations human rights expert as “hearsay”, arguing that they relied on anonymous and unverified submissions.
Anuj Swarup, First Secretary at India’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, delivered the India's response during an interactive dialogue with Gina Romero, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, at the 81st session of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee.
Swarup questioned the report’s evidence and methodology, urging the Special Rapporteur to verify allegations before drawing broader conclusions about India’s youth population.
The report by Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association Gina Romero noted that young people in India had created a “satirical political movement”, a reference to the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), and alleging that young Indians faced retaliation or stigmatisation for discussing mental health or gender justice.
Responding to the findings, Swarup argued that the report relied on 'unnamed submissions' rather than sufficiently verified evidence.
“A sweeping charge against the world's largest youth population, resting on anonymous and unverified claims, is not evidence. It is 'hearsay' dressed up as a UN report, and my delegation rejects it outright,” Swarup said.
“A mandate holder who relies on anonymous inputs to generalise for 1.4 billion people does a disservice to the very mandate she holds. We urge this Special Rapporteur to verify before she vilifies and to bring the required rigour and fairness in her reports,” Swarup said.
He also argued that what he described as arbitrary reporting had contributed to declining public confidence in the United Nations and its institutions.
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly and association to Indian citizens, Swarup said while defending India's record on civil liberties, and also cited established Indian institution for instance judiciary, press and National Human Rights Commission to protect citizen's rights.
Addressing the report's reference to the CJP, Swarup questioned whether the existence of a satirical youth-led political movement was consistent with the report's broader concerns about restrictions on young people's expression.
“In which repressive State does a satirical youth party question the government, marches on the capital, and then sits across the table with senior national leaders,” he said.
The statement was a part of India's official response to the report. The concerns raised by the Special Rapporteur, however, relate to allegations of retaliation and stigmatisation and are not necessarily negated by the existence of public protests or political satire.
Swarup also referred to comments made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Human Rights Council the previous month, which he said highlighted the importance of dialogue with young leaders in the context of India's youth-led movement.
He argued that the government's response to student protests over alleged irregularities in public examinations demonstrated democratic engagement.
According to Swarup, Parliament amended the Public Examinations Act, strengthened penalties for examination-related offences, and the government undertook changes to the examination system and measures to expedite prosecutions of exam fraud.
He presented these developments as examples of the government responding to young people's concerns through institutional processes.
The statement also highlighted the Viksit Bharat Young Leaders Dialogue, with Swarup stated that more than five million young people participated in the initiative this year.
He added that senior ministers, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, continued to engage with young people through direct interactions and social media.
The exchange highlights a disagreement over how youth participation, civil liberties and alleged restrictions on expression should be assessed in India.
The Indian government has challenged the credibility and evidentiary basis of the UN expert's findings, while the report has drawn attention to accounts of alleged retaliation and stigmatisation affecting young people.
The central issue is whether the allegations are supported by sufficiently reliable evidence and how effectively constitutional protections operate in practice. Establishing that requires examining the underlying submissions, the report's methodology and any responses from the people or institutions concerned.
The exchange at the UNGA Third Committee places the debate over freedom of expression, youth activism and the credibility of international human rights reporting in focus.