The UN racial discrimination committee, CERD, has expressed alarm over violence against minorities, Dalits and non-citizens in its first review of India since 2007.
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has issued a sharply critical assessment of India’s record, expressing “grave concern” over reports of large-scale rights violations by law enforcement against ethnic and ethno-religious minorities, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, Scheduled Castes especially Dalits, and non-citizens. The findings, released on 25 August 2026 after India’s first review by the body since 2007, mark a significant moment of international scrutiny nearly two decades after the previous examination.
India ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1968. The latest review examined the country’s combined twentieth and twenty-first periodic reports, submitted years after they were due. The Committee noted that India had failed to provide detailed and updated information on inquiries and sanctions arising from allegations of violence. While the Indian government has long maintained that caste discrimination falls outside the Convention’s definition of racial discrimination because caste is not synonymous with race, CERD has consistently interpreted the treaty to cover discrimination based on inherited status or descent.
Violence and Accountability Gaps
CERD highlighted reports of racially motivated violence, excessive use of force, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary and prolonged detention without due process, torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence. These allegations involved law enforcement operations targeting ethnic and ethno-religious groups, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples including Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes particularly Dalits, and non-citizens. The Committee called on India to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into all such allegations and ensure accountability for those responsible.
Particular attention was paid to increased operations against Rohingya refugees, Bengali-speaking Muslims, migrants and asylum-seekers. These intensified following a 2017 Ministry of Home Affairs order and the April 2025 Pahalgam attack in Kashmir. Police stops and identity checks involving racial profiling reportedly led to arbitrary arrests, detention without due process, torture and ill-treatment. The Committee also raised concerns about deportations and forcible returns of people in need of international protection, in violation of the principle of non-refoulement. It urged India to urgently address discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes against these groups, protect their rights, refrain from collective expulsions and ensure access to international protection.
Citizenship, Electoral Rolls and Exclusion
The National Register of Citizens (NRC) process in Assam and the large-scale deletions under Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) of electoral rolls drew strong criticism. CERD noted that the NRC had led to mass deprivation of citizenship, with disproportionate impact on Bengali-speaking Muslims. It recommended suspension of the NRC and a review of the legislative framework. On the SIR process, which reportedly removed approximately 52 million names across 12 States and Union Territories, with West Bengal seeing 9.1 million deletions ahead of state elections, the Committee called for a review to safeguard the electoral participation rights of ethno-religious minorities and independent investigation of irregularities. It also urged officials not to use the process to spread racist rhetoric.
Manual scavenging continues despite a legal ban, remaining a stark indicator of persistent caste-based discrimination. The Committee further flagged hate speech against Rohingya Muslims, their poor living conditions and mass refoulement.
Legal Framework and Civic Space Under Pressure
CERD expressed concern over the absence of explicit criminalisation of racist hate speech in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It noted the use of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to restrict the work of civil society organisations defending minority and marginalised communities. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act was criticised for exempting “national security” projects from consultative decision-making processes that affect Indigenous communities.
Data deficits compound these problems. The long delay in conducting a new census and the slow release of National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data have left independent verification of official claims about progress against caste- and faith-based discrimination severely hampered. India continues to base “special measures” for Scheduled Tribes and Adivasis on 2011 Census figures, raising the possibility that socioeconomic regression is being masked.
Institutional Weaknesses and Official Response
The findings come against the backdrop of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions recommending a downgrade of India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) last year. Concerns centred on the appointment of police officers to investigative roles and a lack of pluralism. In this vacuum, CERD’s observations carry added weight.
India has rejected the Committee’s references as “politically motivated” and “highly malicious.” The Ministry of External Affairs stated that the Indian delegation, led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had already rejected sweeping generalisations, unsubstantiated allegations and attempts to exceed the Convention’s mandate during the August 11-12 dialogue in Geneva. Officials reiterated that caste cannot be equated with race under Article 1 of the Convention.
Persistent Challenges
The road ahead, as outlined by observers, includes restoring the independence of the NHRC, explicitly criminalising hate speech, strengthening affirmative action, collecting and publishing properly disaggregated data, improving transparency in electoral roll revisions, and reinforcing enforcement mechanisms overall. Yet the government’s reliance on a technical distinction to keep issues affecting roughly 200 million Dalits as a purely domestic matter, combined with its dismissal of the CERD findings, suggests that sustained pressure from civil society in multilateral forums and through domestic legal and political channels will remain essential.
The Committee’s report underscores a broader pattern in which exceptional measures and administrative practices risk normalising discrimination rather than eliminating it. Nearly two decades after the last review, the gap between India’s formal commitments under the Convention and the lived realities documented by the Committee remains stark.
