Panel of Independent International Experts

In June 2022, the Panel of Independent International Experts (PIIE)—three internationally recognised investigators and jurists—examined evidence of alleged violations of international law against Muslims in India. Their 2022 report had warned that India’s Muslims were at risk of becoming a persecuted minority and called for urgent action. That call went unheeded.

The Panel has now reconvened. Its new report — Report of The Panel of Independent International Experts to Examine Information About Alleged Violations of International Law Committed Against Muslims in Assam and Uttar Pradesh, India — 2022–25 — documents what has unfolded since.

Across both states, the Panel finds credible evidence of widespread and systematic human rights violations against Muslims, and reasonable grounds to believe that international crimes, including persecution, torture, and deportation as crimes against humanity, may have been committed. In Assam, the pattern of conduct rises, in the Panel’s assessment, to the level of apartheid.

The Panel is composed of:

Sonja Biserko (Serbia) — President, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia; member, UN Human Rights Investigation into North Korea (2014)
Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia) — former Attorney General of Indonesia; Chair, UN Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka; Chair, UN Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar
Stephen Rapp (USA) — former Chief of Prosecutions, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Chief Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone; former US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues

The 2026 report is published by the Transnational Legal Clinic, Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London.

“That experts of this calibre have found it necessary to turn their attention to India is itself a measure of the gravity of what is unfolding. The eyes of the region, and of the world, are on us…. The spirit of this age is being determined now: in the choices made by those who hold power, and in whether the Constitution remains a living document or becomes, for millions of India’s citizens, a dead letter. What we choose to do now — or not do — will determine the kind of nation we will be remembered as.”

Madan B. Lokur
Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India

Key Findings

The Panel found credible evidence of widespread and systematic human rights violations against Muslims in both states:

In Assam, violations included arbitrary deprivation of life through police ‘encounter’ killings, excessive use of force during eviction operations, custodial deaths, and failure to protect against foreseeable mob violence; arbitrary arrest and detention, including prolonged or indefinite detention linked to discriminatory citizenship determination processes; torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; arbitrary deprivation of nationality exposing individuals to statelessness and removal; summary cross-border expulsions carried out without adequate procedural safeguards, in circumstances raising serious concerns of refoulement; unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, including the criminalisation of dissent; unlawful interference with religious freedom; sustained and discriminatory disenfranchisement; large-scale forced evictions; and severe impairment of economic, social and cultural rights and minority rights, including restrictions on access to housing, livelihoods, welfare, education, cultural participation, and protection of religious and cultural institutions.

In Uttar Pradesh, violations included arbitrary deprivation of life through police ‘encounter’ killings, unlawful use of lethal force against protesters, custodial deaths, and failure to prevent targeted killings by non-state actors; arbitrary arrest and detention, including prolonged pre-trial detention arising from discriminatory enforcement of criminal, anti-conversion, cow-protection and national security laws; torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including excessive force, custodial violence, coercive interrogation practices, and punitive ‘half-encounter’ shootings; systemic violations of fair trial and due process guarantees, including denial of prompt judicial scrutiny, discriminatory prosecution, and punitive demolitions operating as summary punishment; unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, including blanket prohibitory orders, internet shutdowns, criminalisation of protest, and intimidation of journalists and civil society actors; unlawful interference with religious freedom, including coercive enforcement of the anti-conversion law, restrictions on religious practice, and interference with Muslim religious institutions; sustained and discriminatory interference with political participation and voting rights; and severe impairment of economic, social and cultural rights and minority rights, including large-scale demolitions of homes and businesses, livelihood destruction, discriminatory targeting of Muslim-majority localities, and cultural marginalisation affecting language, education, and heritage.

In both states, the Panel found credible evidence of sustained and systemic discrimination against Muslims, who have been denied equal protection and equal enjoyment of rights, contrary to international human rights law.

The Panel also found reasonable basis to believe that international crimes may have been committed against Muslims in both states:

In Assam:

Multiple statements by the Chief Minister portraying Bengali-speaking Muslims as ‘infiltrators’ and existential threats and invoking violent confrontation were made in circumstances that appear to be preparing the ground for ethnic cleansing. In light of the erga omnes obligation to prevent genocide, such rhetoric warrants urgent measures to hold the Chief Minister accountable and stop such violence-inciting speech in the future.
The large-scale expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims from Assam may amount to deportation or forcible transfer as a crime against humanity, involving displacement without grounds permitted under international law, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
The cumulative and institutionalised pattern of hate speech targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam may amount to persecution as a crime against humanity, insofar as it reflects the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights by reason of group identity as part of a widespread or systematic attack. Similarly, the large-scale pattern of forced evictions and home demolitions targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam may also amount to persecution as a crime against humanity.
The systematic stripping of citizenship, legality and residence from Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam may amount to apartheid as a crime against humanity, involving inhumane acts committed within an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination over a racialised group.

In Uttar Pradesh:

The widespread and systematic practice of so-called ‘half-encounter’ maimings by Uttar Pradesh Police may amount to torture as a crime against humanity, involving the intentional infliction of severe physical pain or suffering upon persons in custody or under the control of state agents as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
The widespread and institutionalised pattern of anti-Muslim hate speech in Uttar Pradesh may amount to persecution as a crime against humanity, insofar as it reflects the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights on religious grounds as part of a widespread or systematic attack against Muslims. Similarly, the official targeting of Muslims protesting discrimination, and separately, the discriminatory enforcement measures directed at Muslims engaged in meat-related trades, may also amount to persecution as a crime against humanity. Both these phenomena involve the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights by reason of religious identity, as part of a widespread or systematic attack against Muslims.
The widespread and systematic pattern of abusive and punitive policing targeting Muslims in Uttar Pradesh may amount to other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, involving acts of a similar character to other crimes against humanity that intentionally cause great suffering or serious injury, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

In both states, the Chief Ministers, who themselves lead the rhetoric against Muslims in their jurisdictions, also hold the portfolio of Home Minister, exercising ultimate authority over the police and executive machinery. They therefore bear responsibility for the direction and supervision of the violations described above. Their public endorsement of coercive measures, and repeated characterisation of Muslims as security and demographic threats, also appear to have operated as a permissive signal for mobilisation and violence by non-state actors.

In both states, the remedial framework appears to be largely ineffective for Muslims, particularly in relation to serious violations, and individuals affected have no realistic prospect of securing justice through existing domestic mechanisms.

Recommendations

To the UN Human Rights Council

Mandate an independent fact-finding body to investigate violations against Muslims in India, and an international mechanism to preserve evidence for future accountability proceedings.
Fulfil obligations under UNGA resolution 60/251 by advancing UN resolutions condemning the abuses and named perpetrators, including specifically: (i) mandating the High Commissioner to conduct a comprehensive human rights assessment of India for the Council’s consideration; and (ii) establishing a Special Rapporteur on India to monitor, report publicly, and document violations against religious minorities, reporting annually to the HRC and UNGA

To the UN High Commissioner, Special Advisers on Prevention of Genocide and R2P, and Special Procedures Mandate Holders

Actively monitor violations against Muslims and other religious minorities; publicly express concern; and conduct in-country visits.
Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the human rights situation in India and report findings to the HRC, as well as publicly.
Establish an evidentiary repository to receive and preserve information from civil society-led fact-finding and documentation processes, for future accountability proceedings.

To the Government of India

Immediately cease, prevent, punish, and remedy ongoing violations against Muslims committed by government agents.
Fulfil ICCPR, Genocide Convention, and Responsibility to Protect (R2P) obligations; implement HRC resolution 58/29 and the Rabat Plan of Action on incitement to hatred.
Conduct independent investigations and, where merited, prosecutions; and provide adequate reparation, including interim measures.
Implement measures to promote equal access to socio-economic rights for Muslims.

To the Supreme Court of India

Ensure the expedient resolution of constitutional challenges to laws impacting Muslims as a religious minority.
Guarantee fair trial rights, including for Muslim HRDs, student leaders, and those in extended pre-trial detention.
Provide effective remedies to victims.

To the governments of other States

Monitor the human rights situation in India and publicly call out violations.
Fulfil their international law obligations, including under the Genocide Convention, to address incitement and risks of mass atrocities.
Use diplomatic and economic leverage to urge India to protect Muslim minorities.
Exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction and impose targeted sanctions against perpetrators where warranted.

To social media companies

Implement Rabat Plan and UN Guiding Principles responsibilities; enforce zero-tolerance hate speech policies.
Be transparent on content takedowns; and establish effective content moderation and oversight mechanisms.
Conduct human rights audits of the impact of operations on minorities.

To Indian and international civil society

Document and report violations; and equip frontline activists to demand rights and justice without fear of reprisal.
Undertake coordinated advocacy and public awareness-raising, domestically and internationally.
Establish peoples’ tribunals, memorialisation projects, and truth archives as accountability and reparative initiatives.