UNITED NATIONS, Oct 22: India has rejected what it described as “imprecise and unsupported” references to the country in a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, raising concerns over geographical inaccuracies, the use of unverified allegations and the interpretation of international legal obligations.
India’s position was conveyed by Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs Barkha Tamrakar during an interactive dialogue with Special Rapporteur Gehad Madi at the United Nations.
Tamrakar said the report’s treatment of legal provisions, evidence and state responsibility raised serious concerns, cautioning against presenting unverified claims or policy recommendations as established findings of the United Nations.
“A thematic report must not convert broad policy preferences, unverified allegations, or advocacy submissions into settled findings of the UN,” she said.
Drawing attention to paragraph 27, footnote 32, Tamrakar noted that the document referred to “Assan and Northern India” without identifying a specific legal case, proceeding, authority, date, statute or source.
She pointed out that Assan is not the name of an Indian state or a recognised jurisdiction. If the intended reference was Assam, the report should have used the correct name. Similarly, Northern India does not constitute a distinct legal or administrative jurisdiction for the purpose of establishing a country-specific allegation.
India, therefore, rejected the reference in its existing form, describing it as insufficiently precise and unsupported by identifiable evidence.
Tamrakar said that if the rapporteur intended to address citizenship-related processes in Assam, the document should have identified the particular process and clearly distinguished between allegations, expert concerns, administrative decisions and judicial findings.
She stressed that these categories have different legal implications and should not be treated as interchangeable.
The Indian representative also called for country-specific claims to be properly documented, with the concerned government given an appropriate opportunity to respond before conclusions are presented.
Addressing the report’s discussion of children’s rights, Tamrakar referred to India’s status as a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She said Articles 3, 9 and 10 must be interpreted within their appropriate legal context.
Article 3 establishes that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in actions concerning children. However, India argued that this principle should not be interpreted as automatically overriding every lawful decision relating to public order, border management, criminal conduct, nationality or immigration status.
Tamrakar said India could not accept categorical assertions in the report if they were presented as universally binding treaty provisions without adequate legal justification.
On migration policy, she reiterated India’s support for humane and lawful governance while maintaining that irregular migration cannot be viewed exclusively through the lens of vulnerability, without recognising applicable immigration laws.
India outlined three areas requiring greater clarity and correction. First, references to individual countries must be accurate, specific and verifiable. Second, recommendations should be distinguished from binding treaty obligations and the policy positions of independent mandate holders. Third, child protection should be pursued through due process, family-sensitive procedures, cooperation between states and relevant authorities, and safe and regular migration pathways.
Tamrakar said these objectives should not require governments to abandon legitimate state responsibilities or accept generalised allegations without sufficient evidence.
She reaffirmed India’s commitment to constructive engagement with the United Nations and other member states on migration governance and human rights.
Concluding her remarks, Tamrakar said international cooperation depended on factual accuracy and that human rights advocacy gained credibility when based on verifiable information, applicable law and respect for the sovereign equality of states.