At United Nations Event, Solicitor General Defends CAA, UAPA; Says Human Rights Defenders Must Follow Law Of The Land

Leading the official Indian delegation to the Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva on Thursday, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta appreciated the role of human rights defenders, civil society members, journalists, and activists, however, he did add that their actions should be in conformity with the law of the land. "India has always condemned instances of harassment, intimidation, smear campaigns and violent attack against human rights defenders, activists and journalists, and their family members, at the same the activities of the human rights defenders should conform with the law of the land" At the session, the members made recommendations that the country must combat violence against women, ratify the Convention against Torture, abolish the death penalty, ensure freedom of expression, association & assembly and protect civil society & human rights defenders, ethnic & religious minorities. Defending India's actions regarding the human rights defenders, SG Mehta said that actions have been taken against some human rights organizations as they were found to be involved in illegal practices including, malafide re-routing of money and wilful and continuing violations of foreign exchange management rules and tax laws of India. During the session, when some member states raised concerns over the issue of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), SG Mehta replied that the Act is a limited and focused legislation, which reaffirms India's commitment to the welfare of persecuted minorities in the region and it takes into account "historical context and the current ground realities". "It is similar to laws existing elsewhere in defining specific criteria for citizenship pathways. The criteria defined here is specific to India and its neighbourhood and take into account historical context and the current ground realities. it is aimed at enabling foreigners of six minority communities - Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian - from three specified neighbouring countries - Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who have migrated to India, owing to their religious persecution in those countries to obtain Indian citizenship. This Act neither takes away the citizenship of any Indian citizen nor amends nor abridges any existing process for acquiring Indian citizenship by any foreigner of any country belonging to any faith or religion, Mehta said. As far as the question raised by state members regarding the freedom of religion or belief and the right of minorities, SG Mehta said that India is a multilingual, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious society that doesn't just respect but celebrates our diversity. "The provisions embodied in the Constitution of India related to freedom of religion have evolved over the years through robust legislations and spirited interpretations by the constitutional courts." He added that several states of India have enacted the Freedom Of Religion Act to ensure that freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution of India. Justifying such legislations, he said that such laws impose restrictions on, and prohibit conversions from, one religion to another, by the use of force, allurement, inducement or fraudulent means "Referring to such legislations as anti-conversion laws would be a misnomer. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of states' freedom of religion acts." Addressing the questions regarding abolishing the death penalty in India, SG Mehta, while defending capital punishment said that in India, the death penalty is awarded only in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed, where the crime committed is so heinous that it shocks the conscient of the society. "While imposing the death penalty, the Courts have to record their reasons for arriving at such a drastic conclusion, there is no mandatory death sentence for any offence…There are requisite procedural safeguards in the law including the right to a fair hearing by an independent of court, presumption of innocence, guarantee for defence and right to review by higher courts." Regarding the question related to the right to the Freedom of expression, SG Mehta said that it is not absolute in nature and this right is subject to certain restrictions such as in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with the foreign state, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense, he said. He added that these restrictions are conceived to protect national and public interest and are required to meet a very high threshold. So far as questions were raised regarding UAPA, SG Mehta informed the assembly that India has a responsibility to defend its citizen against terrorist acts and that UAPA has been enacted to secure the balance between the liberty of the citizen and the...

At United Nations Event, Solicitor General Defends CAA, UAPA; Says Human Rights Defenders Must Follow Law Of The Land

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags