Editorial-31/08/2026
State of Exception: On India, the UN CERD Report
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has issued “grave concern” over large-scale human rights violations in India, flagging systemic discrimination against Dalits, tribals, Muslims, Rohingya refugees, and Bengali-speaking communities, while urging suspension of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and review of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). India has rejected the report as “politically motivated and malicious,” asserting robust constitutional safeguards and an unwavering commitment to combating racial discrimination. The editorial titled “State of Exception” in The Hindu argues that the CERD findings expose a troubling normalisation of discriminatory practices and institutional erosion, demanding urgent corrective action.
What is CERD and Why Does Its Report Matter?
CERD is the treaty body monitoring implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which India ratified in 1968. Under ICERD, state parties submit periodic reports; CERD reviews them and issues “Concluding Observations” with recommendations. While India maintains that caste is not “race” and thus outside ICERD’s scope, CERD has consistently interpreted “descent” under Article 1 to include caste-based discrimination, covering Dalits and other marginalised groups.
The 2026 Concluding Observations follow India’s periodic review in Geneva and come amid heightened domestic and international scrutiny over citizenship laws, hate crimes, and shrinking civic space. With the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) downgraded to “B” status in 2025, CERD’s intervention fills a critical accountability gap.
Key Findings of the CERD Report
1. Law Enforcement Abuses and Racial Profiling
CERD expressed “grave concern” over racially motivated violence, excessive force, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, torture, and sexual violence by law enforcement against ethnic, ethno-religious, and tribal communities. Police stops and identity checks involving racial profiling reportedly lead to arbitrary arrests and ill-treatment, particularly targeting Muslims, Rohingyas, and Bengali-speaking populations.
The Committee highlighted the Matia Transit Camp in Assam for overcrowding, inadequate food, water, sanitation, and medical care, urging India to refrain from collective expulsions and ensure detention is a last resort. It also noted that hate crimes against Muslim asylum-seekers peaked after the April 2025 Pahalgam attack in Kashmir.
2. Citizenship Laws: CAA and NRC
CERD questioned the religious criteria in the CAA, 2019, which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, warning it could lead to “mass arbitrary deprivation of citizenship.” The Committee had earlier invoked urgent-action procedures in May 2025 and January 2026 over the NRC’s impact on Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam, citing “systematic and structural racial discrimination.”
Procedural irregularities, difficulties in producing documents (especially for women and children), and unfair classification of Bengali-speaking Muslims as “non-original inhabitants” were flagged. CERD recommended suspending the NRC exercise nationwide and reviewing the CAA framework.
3. Electoral Roll Revisions and Disenfranchisement
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, covering nine states and three Union Territories, reportedly removed approximately 52 million names, including 9.1 million in West Bengal ahead of the April 2026 assembly elections. Bengali-speaking Muslims were disproportionately affected in Bengal and Assam, with contentious statements by senior officials conflating Muslim citizens with foreigners.
CERD called for an independent inquiry into SIR irregularities and the use of electoral revisions to spread racist rhetoric.
4. Caste Discrimination and Manual Scavenging
Despite legal prohibitions, manual scavenging persists, with Dalits continuing to face segregation, exclusion from public spaces, and limited access to infrastructure, healthcare, education, and sanitation. Violence against inter-caste couples, “honour killings,” gender-based violence against Dalit women, and bonded labour remain prevalent.
Only 217 exclusive special courts operate across 15 states/UTs for cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, with low prosecution rates and merely 18 “untouchability” cases registered in 2024 under the Protection of Civil Rights Act. Of 849 judges appointed since 2018, only 33 belong to SCs; only two Chief Justices in 70 years have been from the SC community.
5. Tribal Displacement and Land Rights
CERD cited forced evictions of approximately 89,000 indigenous and tribal families across 18 states following a June 2024 National Tiger Conservation Authority order, often without free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, was flagged for potentially exempting projects from consultation requirements, infringing tribal rights.
The Committee called for suspension of evictions until appeals are completed and for halting development projects in sensitive areas like Great Nicobar and Andaman Islands.
6. Hate Speech, Civic Space, and Legal Gaps
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) does not recognise racist motivation as an aggravating circumstance, creating a legal gap in addressing hate crimes. Over 1,800 FCRA licences were rescinded between 2019–2021, disproportionately affecting rights groups.
CERD also criticised the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, for enabling prolonged detentions of undocumented migrants and asylum-seekers with restricted judicial oversight.
India’s Response: Rejection and Defence
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) rejected the report’s “politically motivated, highly malicious references,” emphasising India’s constitutional safeguards, pluralism, and sustained efforts to protect disadvantaged communities. An inter-ministerial delegation led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted India’s role in drafting ICERD and its unwavering commitment to combating racial discrimination.
India argued that caste is not race and thus outside ICERD’s mandate, a position CERD has consistently rejected by interpreting “descent” to include caste. The government also pointed to positive measures such as the 2013 manual scavenging prohibition, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act amendments, and welfare boards for nomadic communities.
“State of Exception” and the Normalisation of Discrimination
The Hindu’s editorial “State of Exception” frames the CERD findings as evidence of a deeper crisis: the normalisation of discriminatory practices under the guise of national security, development, and administrative efficiency. The term “state of exception” — drawn from political theory — denotes a situation where normal legal and constitutional safeguards are suspended or bypassed in the name of emergency, creating a parallel regime of rule.
In India’s case, the editorial argues, this manifests through:
- Citizenship and Electoral Exclusion: The CAA-NRC framework and SIR of electoral rolls create a mechanism for mass disenfranchisement, particularly targeting Muslims and Bengali-speaking communities.
- Institutional Erosion: The NHRC’s downgrade, police-dominated investigative roles, and lack of pluralism weaken domestic accountability, making international scrutiny like CERD’s essential.
- Data Opacity: Delayed Census, fragmented NCRB data, and lack of disaggregated statistics hinder independent evaluation of discrimination claims, enabling the state to obscure socioeconomic declines among Scheduled Castes and Adivasis.
- Legal Gaps: The BNS’s failure to criminalise hate speech explicitly, coupled with laws like FCRA, UAPA, AFSPA, and PMLA being used to obstruct civil society, creates a chilling effect on dissent and accountability.
The editorial contends that the government’s dismissal of CERD concerns as “domestic matters” and its reliance on technicalities to evade international scrutiny reflect a broader pattern of resisting accountability.
Way Forward: Recommendations and Imperatives
CERD’s recommendations provide a roadmap for corrective action:
- Suspend NRC and Review CAA: Halt the NRC exercise nationwide and reassess the CAA’s religious criteria to prevent mass arbitrary deprivation of citizenship.
- Criminalise Hate Speech: Amend the BNS to explicitly recognise racist motivation as an aggravating circumstance and criminalise hate speech.
- Restore NHRC Autonomy: Ensure the NHRC’s independence, pluralism, and compliance with the Paris Principles to regain “A” status.
- Disaggregated Data: Publish comprehensive, disaggregated data on caste, religion, and ethnicity to enable evidence-based policy and accountability.
- Protect Tribal Rights: Suspend forced evictions, ensure FPIC for development projects, and halt initiatives in ecologically and culturally sensitive areas like Great Nicobar.
- Electoral Roll Transparency: Conduct independent inquiries into SIR irregularities and ensure revisions do not disproportionately target specific communities.
- Asylum Framework: Ratify the 1954 and 1961 statelessness conventions and establish an asylum procedure consistent with international standards.
Conclusion: Beyond Denial to Accountability
The CERD report is not merely an external critique but a mirror reflecting India’s democratic deficits. While the government’s rejection underscores sovereignty concerns, the substantive findings — from caste discrimination to citizenship exclusion — demand more than diplomatic rebuttals. As The Hindu editorial argues, the responsibility now lies with civil society, judiciary, and multilateral platforms to sustain pressure for accountability, ensuring that India’s constitutional promise of equality is not rendered a “state of exception.”
For UPSC aspirants, this episode encapsulates key themes: international human rights mechanisms, federalism and citizenship, caste and tribal rights, electoral governance, and the tension between sovereignty and global accountability. It also highlights the importance of critical editorial analysis in understanding the intersection of law, policy, and rights in contemporary India.
Download Pdf
