A panel of three international legal experts has concluded there is a "reasonable basis to believe that international crimes may have been committed against Muslims in both states" of Assam and Uttar Pradesh. The report, published in March 2026, is the second from the group and covers July 2022 to January 2026.
The Panel of Independent International Experts (PIIE) comprises Sonja Biserko, a founder of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia; Marzuki Darusman, former Indonesian attorney general and chair of the UN Fact Finding Mission on Myanmar; and Stephen Rapp, former chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The 372-page report was published by the Transnational Legal Clinic at King's College London.
The Panel says it reconvened because of "the continuing, and arguably worsening, trend of violence and discrimination against Muslims in India." It found "credible evidence of widespread and systematic human rights violations against Muslims in both states", regretting, victims have no realistic path to justice in India.
Assam: Allegations Of Apartheid And Forced Transfer
The report's gravest finding on Assam is that the "systematic stripping of citizenship, legality and residence from Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam may amount to apartheid as a crime against humanity." It points to the National Register of Citizens, religion-based pathways under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, and new executive procedures allowing summary determination of immigration status, detention and expulsion.
On killings, official data showed 171 police "encounters" between May 2021 and August 2022, causing 56 deaths and 146 injuries. Media reports put the toll at 83 by January 2024, with over 45 of those killed identified as Bengali-speaking Muslims, who make up 34% of the state's population. The Panel concluded that "lethal force has been normalized, rather than treated as a last resort." It also cites at least eight Bengali-speaking Muslims killed in eviction-related operations since 2016, and five Muslim deaths in lynchings linked to cattle-smuggling allegations since July 2023.
The report notes that about 93,000 people remain designated "D-voters," resulting in "prolonged disenfranchisement without effective remedy," and that state-funded madrassas affecting nearly 98,000 students were abolished.
The Panel singled out Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. It says he has spoken of "igniting fire" against "infiltrators," called a "last battle of survival," and said he wanted "the situation to be explosive." In early 2026 he reportedly said electoral roll removal notices were being served to "Miya" Muslims "to give them trouble." The Panel found his statements were made "in circumstances that appear to be preparing the ground for ethnic cleansing." It said they raise concerns of direct and public incitement to genocide that warrant independent investigation. It added that "his words do expressly support ethnic cleansing," but that it did not find specific genocidal intent.
Uttar Pradesh: "Half-encounters" And Punitive Policing
In Uttar Pradesh, the Panel found a reasonable basis to believe that police "half-encounters" may amount to torture as a crime against humanity. In 2024 alone, it said, at least 56 Muslims and two Hindus were grievously injured, typically "shot in the knees or legs," across at least 16 districts. The consistency of injuries, allegations of planted weapons and the absence of any imminent threat "point to punitive and premeditated violence rather than legitimate law enforcement."
Police recorded over 16,284 "encounter" operations since 2017, resulting in 266 deaths, including at least 48 in 2025, the highest annual toll since 2017. Previously disclosed official data showed Muslims were over 32% of those killed, against roughly 19% of the population. In November 2024, five Muslim men were killed when police fired on protesters in Sambhal. The Panel also reviewed at least 15 targeted killings of Muslims by Hindu extremists since 2022.
The report cites the Chief Minister's warnings of "revenge" against protesters, his statement that "Yamaraj" was waiting, and his endorsement of "knocking down" alleged criminals. It says the response to the September 2025 "I Love Muhammad" campaign involved mass FIRs, detentions of minors, internet shutdowns and demolition drives. It adds that "comparable public religious activities by Hindu groups have not elicited similar state action." The Panel found a reasonable basis to believe that hate speech, the targeting of Muslim protesters, and discriminatory enforcement against Muslims in meat-related trades may amount to persecution as a crime against humanity.
The report concludes that in both states, victims "have no realistic prospect of securing justice through existing domestic mechanisms." In Assam it found that prosecutions of public officials "appear virtually non-existent" and that Muslim victims "have received virtually no reparation." It treats a January 2026 Gauhati High Court ruling upholding expulsions as "judicial endorsement of the government's approach."
Both Chief Ministers also hold the home portfolio and so control the police. The Panel said their rhetoric appears to have "operated as a permissive signal for mobilisation and violence by non-state actors."
Recommendations
The Panel urges the UN Human Rights Council to mandate an independent fact-finding body and a Special Rapporteur on India. It calls on the Indian government to "immediately cease, prevent, punish, and remedy ongoing violations" and to conduct independent investigations. It also urges other states to consider targeted sanctions and social media companies to enforce hate speech policies.
In a foreword, retired Supreme Court Justice Madan B. Lokur wrote that the findings "make for painful—but essential—reading." He described "a multi-pronged assault on their security, dignity, and belonging" and asked whether the Constitution "becomes, for millions of India's citizens, a dead letter."
Limits Of The Findings
The Panel applied the "credible information" threshold used to justify opening formal investigations, which is below the standard for arrest or trial. It said it "did not seek a response from the Government of India" and did not weigh defensive material. India is not a party to the Rome Statute. The report draws on documentation from victim groups, officials, court records, media and social media.
Comments