India has strongly challenged a United Nations report that alleged young people in the country face retaliation or stigmatisation for speaking about issues such as mental health and gender justice.

The criticism was delivered by Indian diplomat Anuj Swarup during an interactive dialogue at the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly's Third Committee.

Swarup questioned the credibility of the findings and argued that the report relied heavily on anonymous and unverified submissions rather than independently verified evidence.

The report was prepared by UN Special Rapporteur Gina Romero, whose mandate covers the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

According to India, broad conclusions about the country’s young population cannot be justified on the basis of unnamed sources referenced in footnotes. Swarup described the allegations as unsupported by verifiable evidence and rejected them outright.

He argued that India's Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedoms of assembly and association, to all citizens. He added that these rights are protected through an independent judiciary, a free press and the National Human Rights Commission.

The Indian diplomat further contended that reliance on anonymous submissions to draw conclusions about one of the world's largest youth populations undermines the credibility of such assessments.

Swarup urged greater rigour, verification and fairness in the preparation of UN reports, maintaining that conclusions affecting a country of India's scale should be supported by substantial and transparent evidence.

India also pointed to continued youth engagement initiatives and government interaction with young citizens, including large-scale consultation efforts and action against examination fraud, as examples of institutional responsiveness to youth concerns.

The exchange underscores an ongoing disagreement between New Delhi and the United Nations over the assessment of civic freedoms and youth participation in India, particularly regarding the methodology used to evaluate conditions on the ground.

As a result, the debate has evolved beyond the report's specific allegations, focusing more broadly on standards of evidence, accountability and credibility in international human rights reporting.

Agencies