'Undermines their credibility': India denounces OHCHR for 'selectivity' after remarks on protest

India on Wednesday strongly criticised the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) over its remarks on the detention of protesters in Delhi, accusing the international body of "extreme selectivity" and warning that its approach could undermine its credibility and erode confidence in multilateral institutions.

Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal described the UN human rights office's concerns as unwarranted and unacceptable, asserting that its comments on the handling of demonstrations in the national capital amounted to interference in India's internal affairs.

The sharp response came after the OHCHR expressed concern over reports of mass detentions of demonstrators, student activists, civil society members, lawyers and journalists during protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Addressing a media briefing, Jaiswal questioned why the UN body had publicly criticised India's handling of the demonstrations while, according to him, remaining silent on comparable developments elsewhere in the world.

𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗨𝗡 𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆'𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆

Jaiswal said the concerns expressed by the OHCHR were unacceptable because they amounted to interference in India's domestic affairs.

"The concerns expressed by OHCHR are unwarranted and at the same time unacceptable because it amounts to interference in India's internal affairs," he said.

Accusing the organisation of adopting inconsistent standards, the spokesperson said it had failed to take comparable public positions on protests and law enforcement operations in other countries.

"It seems that they have an approach of extreme selectivity because they have not reacted in their public positions on protests which are happening or law enforcement actions which are happening in other parts of the world," Jaiswal said.

He warned that continued selective interventions could weaken public confidence in international organisations and the multilateral system.

"If they continue on this path, then obviously it will lead to loss of faith in multilateralism. At the same time, it undermines their credibility as an organisation," he added.

The remarks represented a renewed criticism of the UN human rights office, which India had already accused of applying double standards in its assessment of the Delhi protests.

𝗨𝗡 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

The controversy began after the OHCHR expressed concern on October 10 over reports that large numbers of demonstrators and other individuals had been detained before and during protests in Delhi.

UN Human Rights spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan called on Indian authorities to respect the right to peaceful assembly and ensure that restrictions on demonstrations met internationally recognised standards of necessity and proportionality.

The UN office also urged law enforcement agencies to exercise restraint while dealing with peaceful protesters, consistent with India's democratic traditions and international human rights obligations.

It called for the immediate and unconditional release of individuals who had been arbitrarily detained and encouraged the authorities to engage in meaningful dialogue over the concerns raised by demonstrators.

The statement followed large-scale demonstrations organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other groups demanding Kumar's resignation over alleged irregularities in the electoral roll revision exercise.

The protests were accompanied by heightened security arrangements, preventive detentions and restrictions on movement in parts of the national capital, prompting criticism from Opposition parties and civil society organisations.

𝗠𝗘𝗔 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮'𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

India had earlier rejected the OHCHR's observations, maintaining that the right to peaceful assembly was guaranteed under the Constitution and protected by the country's democratic institutions.

In a statement issued on Sunday, Jaiswal said India was the world's largest democracy, where constitutional freedoms were safeguarded by an independent judiciary, a free media and established legal mechanisms.

He emphasised that the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly was subject to the maintenance of public order and safety, as in other democratic countries.

The MEA maintained that Indian law enforcement agencies acted in accordance with the law and that judicial remedies remained available to individuals seeking redressal of grievances.

It also argued that the OHCHR had not publicly commented on violent responses to demonstrations in India's neighbourhood or on certain law enforcement actions closer to the UN body's own headquarters.

India's Permanent Mission in Geneva had separately described the UN office's concerns as misplaced and an unwarranted intervention in domestic matters.

𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗵𝗶 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗿𝗼𝘄

The exchange has brought international attention to the continuing protests over the SIR exercise and the handling of demonstrations in Delhi.

Opposition parties and student organisations have accused the authorities of imposing excessive restrictions on peaceful assembly, while police have maintained that security measures were necessary to preserve public order.

The controversy has also raised questions about the proportionality of restrictions imposed during demonstrations and the circumstances in which preventive detentions can be justified.

The OHCHR's intervention focused on the protection of fundamental freedoms and the treatment of protesters, while India's response centred on national sovereignty, the legality of police action and what New Delhi described as inconsistent scrutiny by the international body.

Wednesday's remarks underscored the government's continuing objection to external criticism of its handling of the demonstrations, with the MEA maintaining that India's constitutional institutions and legal processes were equipped to address concerns arising from the protests.