Civicus has rated 50 countries and territories as 'repressed' -- just one notch better to than 'closed' -- meaning that civil society in these countries faces severe restrictions on fundamental freedoms. It rates 28 countries or territories 'closed', 40 countries or territories as 'obstructed', 43 countries as 'narrowed' and 37 countries as 'open.'
The report was submitted ahead of UNHRC's review in Geneva of the state’s implementation of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in July 2024. In the submission, Civicus documents the use of restrictive legislations against activists, journalists and others critical of the state, along with harassment and attacks. Civicus: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is claimed to be a global alliance of civil society organisations and activists with over 15,000 members in 175 countries.
Citing government promise to review the law when the Supreme Court suspended its use in May 2022, the report regrets, "In May 2023, the Law Commission, which advised the Indian government on legal reforms, recommended retaining the law, expanding the definition of sedition and increasing the punishment for violating the law, citing the need for national security." Worse, it adds, "A proposed new penal code contains clause 150 that closely resembles the sedition provision in section 124A in the current law."
Offering examples of how the law is being used against journalists critical of the government, including Ismat Ara, Siddharth Vardarajan, Siddique Kappan, Rana Ayyub and Prabir Purkayastha, Civicus says, "Indian authorities continue to use restrictive legislation to prosecute journalists, including by harassing and intimidating them. Journalists from Kashmir have faced targeted harassment including arrest and criminalisation under counter terror laws, suspension of passports and arbitrary travel bans."
Notes the report, Kashmir journalists targeted include photojournalist Masrat Zahrawas, booked for uploading ‘anti-national posts’ on social media; Peerzada Ashiq for ‘publishing rumours against public tranquillity’; and Asif Sultan for a story he wrote about insurgent leader Burhan Wani, whose death sparked protests in Kashmir.
Stating how the Indian government has been restricting the online space, the report says, it "threatened to punish Twitter employees with fines and jail terms of up to seven years for restoring hundreds of accounts it had ordered the company to block", pointing out, "Most accounts were critical of Modi." Further, the authorities shut down of “over 1,000 accounts under section 69A of the Information Technology Act”. It also "blocked" the BBC documentary for showing alleged Modi role in the 2002 Gujarat riots and the Hindutva Watch site, which tracks incidents of hate crimes and religiously motivated violence perpetrated by BJP supporters and Hindu vigilante groups.
Coming to how the Indian government seeks to restrict dissenting civil society organisations (CSOs), the report says, legal provisions are “used to prohibit the holding of assemblies in public spaces is the issuance of orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure” citing the need to “maintain ‘public tranquillity’.” Protesters are supposed to seek ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the police for holding a protest, which is “inconsistent with international law.”
During protests against the citizenship law, the report says, authorities “arrested student leaders who were involved in peaceful protests on fabricated charges of inciting violence under the UAPA following communal riots in northeastern Delhi in February 2020.” Facing farmers’ protests, the authorities not only used baton and teargas gas to restrict their movement, even mobile internet services were also suspended in parts of Delhi and Haryana state.
Then, in Delhi, police arrested 21-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi (photo) for allegedly editing a protest toolkit relating to the farmer’s protest, charging her with sedition and alleged the toolkit Ravi edited was linked to a larger criminal conspiracy to ‘wage economic, social, cultural and regional war against India’.
Citing government promise to review the law when the Supreme Court suspended its use in May 2022, the report regrets, "In May 2023, the Law Commission, which advised the Indian government on legal reforms, recommended retaining the law, expanding the definition of sedition and increasing the punishment for violating the law, citing the need for national security." Worse, it adds, "A proposed new penal code contains clause 150 that closely resembles the sedition provision in section 124A in the current law."
Offering examples of how the law is being used against journalists critical of the government, including Ismat Ara, Siddharth Vardarajan, Siddique Kappan, Rana Ayyub and Prabir Purkayastha, Civicus says, "Indian authorities continue to use restrictive legislation to prosecute journalists, including by harassing and intimidating them. Journalists from Kashmir have faced targeted harassment including arrest and criminalisation under counter terror laws, suspension of passports and arbitrary travel bans."
Notes the report, Kashmir journalists targeted include photojournalist Masrat Zahrawas, booked for uploading ‘anti-national posts’ on social media; Peerzada Ashiq for ‘publishing rumours against public tranquillity’; and Asif Sultan for a story he wrote about insurgent leader Burhan Wani, whose death sparked protests in Kashmir.
Coming to how the Indian government seeks to restrict dissenting civil society organisations (CSOs), the report says, legal provisions are “used to prohibit the holding of assemblies in public spaces is the issuance of orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure” citing the need to “maintain ‘public tranquillity’.” Protesters are supposed to seek ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the police for holding a protest, which is “inconsistent with international law.”
During protests against the citizenship law, the report says, authorities “arrested student leaders who were involved in peaceful protests on fabricated charges of inciting violence under the UAPA following communal riots in northeastern Delhi in February 2020.” Facing farmers’ protests, the authorities not only used baton and teargas gas to restrict their movement, even mobile internet services were also suspended in parts of Delhi and Haryana state.
The report further points to how the Indian government has increasingly used the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) to restrict foreign funding for CSOs. “In the last 10 years more than 20,600 CSOs have had their FCRA licences cancelled, with almost 6,000 cancellations occurring since the beginning of 2022”, the report says, which even UN special Rapporteur called was “in contravention of international law and standards.”
“The law and its amendments have been used to target and harass civil society and human rights defenders (HRDs), who very often express criticism and dissent towards the government”, the report underlines, pointing towards how “prominent national organisations” such as Citizens for Justice and Peace, Lawyers Collective and People’s Watch, Centre for Equity Studies (CES) and international organisations such as Amnesty International India, Greenpeace India and Oxfam India have been barred from foreign funds under the law.
Worse, the Indian government has “brazenly used” its federal law enforcement agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department to harass these CSOs and HRDs and “criminalise" their human rights work and for speaking out on human rights issues.”
Meanwhile, the report says, criminalisation of human rights defenders (HRDs) in reaction to their work in India continues, especially “in relation to riots in Bhima Koregaon and Delhi” under the UAPA’s draconian provisions, putting activists “in detention for long periods” and are denying them bail on even health grounds.
It this context, the report refers to cases against late Stan Swamy, Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Gautam Navlakha, Anand Teltumbde, Shoma Sen, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut and Rona Wilson, Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Gorkhe, Jyoti Jagtap, Hany Babu, Umar Khalid, Umar Khalid and Gulfisha Fatima.
The submission calls on the UNHRC to make a series of recommendations to the Indian government, including:
“The law and its amendments have been used to target and harass civil society and human rights defenders (HRDs), who very often express criticism and dissent towards the government”, the report underlines, pointing towards how “prominent national organisations” such as Citizens for Justice and Peace, Lawyers Collective and People’s Watch, Centre for Equity Studies (CES) and international organisations such as Amnesty International India, Greenpeace India and Oxfam India have been barred from foreign funds under the law.
Worse, the Indian government has “brazenly used” its federal law enforcement agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department to harass these CSOs and HRDs and “criminalise" their human rights work and for speaking out on human rights issues.”
Meanwhile, the report says, criminalisation of human rights defenders (HRDs) in reaction to their work in India continues, especially “in relation to riots in Bhima Koregaon and Delhi” under the UAPA’s draconian provisions, putting activists “in detention for long periods” and are denying them bail on even health grounds.
It this context, the report refers to cases against late Stan Swamy, Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Gautam Navlakha, Anand Teltumbde, Shoma Sen, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut and Rona Wilson, Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Gorkhe, Jyoti Jagtap, Hany Babu, Umar Khalid, Umar Khalid and Gulfisha Fatima.
The submission calls on the UNHRC to make a series of recommendations to the Indian government, including:
- Review and amend criminal laws to conform to international law and standards as set out in the ICCPR, including sedition provisions in the Indian Penal Code.
- End restrictions on the movement of journalists and arbitrary travels bans, particularly for Kashmiri journalists.
- Repeal or amend the FCRA so that it does not violate India’s obligations to protect freedom of association, which includes the ability of CSOs to access foreign funding and ensure its not misused to prevent the legitimate activities of CSOs.
- Immediately and unconditionally release all HRDs, journalists, academics and others detained for exercising their fundamental freedoms, and review their cases to prevent further harassment.
Comments