ON OCTOBER 14, 2025, India was elected to the UN Human Rights Council for the seventh time from the Asia group, along with Pakistan, Vietnam, and Iraq. While this may read as a diplomatic triumph for the state and a national prestige for the citizens at the outset, a deeper look into the UN Human Rights System and the situation at home tells us a truly discomforting tale. Behind the immaculate flags and the loud applause lies thousands of silenced voices and blood stained clothes, calling for scrutiny by the Indians and the international community.
What is the UNHRC, and why is it important?
Needless to say that the fundamental idea behind the creation of the United Nations was to protect human rights after the toll of the bloody wars of the 20th century. The UN Commission on Human Rights, under the ECOSOC system and the 1235 public procedure, proved to be inefficient, over-politicised by diplomatic considerations and was replaced by the UNHRC in 2006. The new system, at least on paper, introduced robust mechanisms to review the state’s human rights records and to address specific situations. The new procedure to review the state’s human rights record is called Universal Periodic Review (UPR), and the thematic arrangements, including fact findings and ad-hoc inquiries, were primarily brought under the UN Special Procedures (UNSRs).
Now, the core question is, why should India’s election to the UNHRC trouble us? Does it really matter?
As we look deeper, the glaring truth becomes impossible to ignore. The General Assembly Resolution no. 60/251, which created the UNHRC, mandates that states that are members of the council should uphold “the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and “fully cooperate with the Council.”
Now, the core question is, why should India’s election to the UNHRC trouble us? Does it really matter?
If this is the case, has India been faring well in its human rights protection? And if the country’s record doesn’t match the promise, how did it still walk into the Council unhindered? These tensions cut straight through the celebrations' grandstanding rhetoric, revealing that the victory was less about the state’s human rights record and more about the fissures in the UN system.
What is India’s obligation to International Human Rights Law
The situation of human rights in India is self-explanatory today. It is evident from the enormous condemnation from genuine actors both within and outside India. Nonetheless, what needs to be examined is a more magnified view towards its actions. Article 51(3) of the Indian Constitution says that the state shall “(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another;”.
More specifically, Article 253 says, “Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.”
In addition, Sections 2(d) and 12(f) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 make direct references to the International Conventions and the state’s human rights obligations, not to mention the numerous Supreme Court verdicts endorsing international norms. From an International lens, the UN charter and articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention clearly stipulate India’s international human rights obligations. Reading all these together will give any prudent reader a clear understanding that India is obliged to respect UN deliberations and give effect to International law through legislation.
India’s respect for treaty bodies
Treaty bodies, formed by treaties which state become a party to, consist of experts who monitor the implementation of specific treaties, handle complaints and create obligations to enact laws to give effect to the treaties. If as a reader you feel remote to the treaties, taking a look at the Vishaka (1996) guidelines and the POSH Act will prove you otherwise. It was a direct effect of India’s ratification of the CEDAW Convention. So we are not talking about fancy treaties that do not have any impact on the ground, needless to mention the impact of the POSH Act in India.
While this is something laudable, India has paid sheer disrespect and obstructed the impact of international conventions at many levels. The reservation that India made to Article 29 and the declaration under Article 5(a) and 16 of CEDAW negatively impacted marriage equality in India, also violating the Committee’s General Recommendation No. 20. India has also not ratified the Optional Protocol i.e Indian women cannot make individual complaints to seek international redress if they are denied justice at the domestic level.
India houses one of the largest numbers (400 million) of migrant workers in the world with millions toiling in the informal sector without social security or legal protection. Despite this, India has not ratified the Convention on Migrant Workers, nor does it have a domestic law to protect the millions of migrant workers.
India has a sizable number of refugee and asylum seekers but it has not ratified the Refugee Convention, nor does it have a law to protect the rights of refugees. Contrastly, it came up with the discriminatory the Citizenship Amendment Act which excluded certain groups of vulnerable refugees, not to mention the whole array of human rights abuses still persisting against those who questioned it. Rohingyas being thrown into the sea and their homes being raided by the police are called ‘fanciful ideas’ by the Supreme Court because there is no domestic law nor there is international obligation due to non-ratification. Same with the non-ratification of the Torture convention, making it one of the dozen countries who have not done it, despite paying lip services since 1997. With no torture law, several international organizations have called out the situation of torture in India.
India and the Human Rights Council
India’s voluntary pledge for the candidature in the UNHRC this year reinstated its commitment towards the highest standard of human rights protection, which is quite paradoxical to its deeds in the council.
India has foul played and not implemented the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review, the prime function of the council. Another core feature of the council is the special procedures which undertakes inquiries, country visits and reports.
Since 2017, there have been no special rapporteur visit in India with more than 25 pending requests and some reminders unaccepted by the government. In addition, several communications from different Special Rapporteurs over a period of time have received very little response from the government (18 out of 78).
India has a sizable number of refugee and asylum seekers but it has not ratified the Refugee Convention, nor does it have a law to protect the rights of refugees.
Close slate & the eroding trust
Now, we have come to answer the last question of this rather discomforting revelation i.e ‘Why despite such a poor human rights record India was elected to the council?’.
The answer is stark and unvarnished: politics and diplomacy. It goes against the very spirit of the council and why its predecessor was abolished in 2006. In principle, what has to be a competitive election based on human rights record has turned today into a ritualistic symbol with 14 candidates contesting for 14 seats in an uncompetitive manner, like in the past.
Saddeningly, many of the candidates failed to meet the council’s criteria as revealed by the ISHR Scorecards. India fulfilled only two of the 17 criteria among. Among the two, the NHRC’s accreditation is also recommended to be downgraded. In an era of democratic backsliding around the world, bending the UNHRC processes for purely diplomatic, political and symbolic gain is nothing but betrayal of the founding values of the UN. ‘We the peoples’ will lose trust in the UN framework when ‘uncompetitive elections undermine the Human Rights Council’s reputation and work, making it possible for less than ideal candidates to sail through and stall human rights initiatives.'
What’s left for Indians?
Ultimately, this election is a clarion call. Regardless of the credibility of the UN framework, the Indian citizenry should rise up to the situation and demand the government give effect to its international obligations, respond to the UN expert communications and allow visits by the Special Rapporteurs. The state should commit practically to the obligations, not for its symbolic presence at the council, but for truly upholding“the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” serving the most needy of the country.
On the other hand, it is a call to the UN system and the international community: can we celebrate while injustice thrives? Can we applaud while pain persists? If we do nothing and allow politics to overshadow principle, the promise of the United Nations withers. The question is no longer distant or abstract, it is immediate, personal, and urgent: will we bow to rituals or results?