India has strongly rejected “imprecise and unsupported” references to it in a report by a UN expert on the rights of migrants, saying a country-specific allegation cannot be made through typographical errors and unidentified geographical expression.
Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs Barkha Tamrakar delivered India’s statement at the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants.
Tamrakar called out glaring inaccuracies in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Gehad Madi, related to India.
“India must place on record a serious concern about the report’s treatment of law, evidence, and state responsibility. A thematic report must not convert broad policy preferences, unverified allegations, or advocacy submissions into settled findings of the UN,” she said.
Highlighting the report’s apparent reference to India, Tamrakar pointed out that in paragraph 27, footnote 32, the report states, “For instance, in Assam and Northern India.” Tamrakar said that this is the complete reference and does not identify a case, a proceeding, an authority, a date, a law, or a source.
“Assan is not the name of an Indian state or a recognised jurisdiction. If the intended reference is Assam, the report should say so accurately. Northern India is not a legal or administrative jurisdiction. A country-specific allegation cannot be made through a typographical error and an unidentified geographical expression,” she said.
“India therefore rejects this reference as imprecise and unsupported in its present form. If the special rapporteur intended to refer to the citizenship-related processes in Assam, the report should have identified the precise process and distinguished an allegation, an expert concern, an administrative decision, and a judicial finding,” she said, emphasising that “these are not interchangeable categories.”
Tamrakar further said that India also expects that any country-specific assertion will be properly sourced and respect the concerned state’s opportunity to respond.
Noting that India is a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, she said it supports Articles 3, 9, and 10 in their proper context. Article three requires the child’s best interest to be the primary consideration.
“It does not say that this consideration is the only consideration in every case, or that it automatically overrides lawful decisions concerning public order, border management, criminal conduct, nationality, or immigration status. India cannot accept the report’s categorical propositions as though they were universally binding legal treaty rules,” she said.
While India supports humane and lawful migration governance, it does not accept that irregular migration be treated only as vulnerability and never as a breach of immigration law.
Calling for three corrections, India said country references must be accurate, specific, and verifiable; recommendations must be clearly distinguished from binding treaty obligations and from the independent mandate holder’s policy reference and protection of child must be advanced through due process, family-sensitive procedures, cooperation between States and child protection authorities and safe and regular pathways, not through the denial of legitimate State functions or the use of generalised allegations.
Noting that India will continue to engage constructively with the United Nations and with all States on these objectives, she stressed that cooperation is strengthened by accuracy, and human rights advocacy is strengthened, not weakened, when it is grounded in verifiable facts, applicable law, and respect for the sovereign equality of States.