India rejects report by UN human rights expert that says Indian youth face retaliation, terms claims as 'hearsay'

India rejected a United Nations human-rights expert’s report on young people, with Indian diplomat Anuj Swarup describing its claims as “hearsay” and challenging the evidence behind its conclusions. The report said Indian youth faced retaliation or stigma for discussing mental health or gender justice, and referred to a “satirical political movement” created by young people.

Swarup criticised Special Rapporteur Gina Romero’s use of anonymous inputs. He argued that such material could not justify general conclusions about India’s population of 1.4 billion. India Today reported that Swarup said a footnote cited only “unnamed submissions”; ABP Live also reported his objection to relying on anonymous submissions to make broader assertions about India.

The two accounts give differing amounts of detail about what India challenged. India Today describes the report’s claims about retaliation or stigma and its reference to the youth-created movement. ABP Live focuses on Swarup’s objection to anonymous evidence and his argument that it was being used to generalise about the population.

The accounts identify the same central dispute: the report’s claims about youth and the basis India says supports them. Swarup also defended India’s constitutional and institutional safeguards. He said Article 19 guarantees citizens freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly and association.

ABP Live additionally reports that he cited an independent judiciary, a free press and the National Human Rights Commission. These are India’s stated grounds for rejecting the report; the accounts do not independently assess whether those safeguards address the report’s specific claims.

The exchange took place during the Third Committee’s examination of human-rights issues at the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, according to ABP Live. India Today describes the setting as a UN committee dialogue.

Both accounts report India’s rejection, while the details they emphasize differ: India Today foregrounds the report’s assertions about young people, and ABP Live foregrounds Swarup’s criticism of the evidentiary basis and his reference to safeguards. The reporting establishes the competing positions, not a finding on whether young people experienced retaliation or stigma.

India rejects the report’s claims as inadequately supported; Romero’s report, as described by India Today, makes claims about the experiences of young people and cites submissions. The accounts do not provide the underlying submissions or further findings that would resolve that disagreement.

The immediate issue is therefore both substantive and evidentiary: what the report says about youth in India, and whether its cited material supports those claims. The exchange records India’s position at the committee, but does not document a committee decision or an independent determination of the report’s conclusions.