Statement by India in the Agenda Item 3 Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, during the 61st Session of the Human Rights Council (23 February – 31 March 2026), delivered by Mr. Muhammed Shabeer K, Under Secretary (UNES), Geneva, 3 March 2026
Madam Vice President,
India takes note of the report. We recognize States’ obligation to ensure that deceased persons are treated with dignity and respect, including in the handling of human remains.
- India is a multilingual, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, where funeral and burial practices are as diverse as its faiths and communities, governed by general laws, religious personal laws and local regulations, underpinned by a strong commitment to non-discrimination.
- We regret that the report relies on politically motivated and factually incorrect allegations from self-styled advocacy organisations, with a record of ideological bias and hostility towards India, leading to a portrayal that ignores India’s scale, diversity and constitutional protections.
- Disputes regarding burial or cremation sites in India are localised, fact-specific issues shaped by land-use, community preferences and urban-planning considerations. They do not reflect any State policy of discrimination, and if and when disputes arise, they are adjudicated by independent courts, subject to constitutional guarantees and statutory protections. Regulation of burial and cremation in India is primarily undertaken by local authorities in consultation with communities, and it is inaccurate to generalize from isolated interpersonal conflicts and disputes.
- We reject attempts to link such disputes with laws regulating religious conversions by force, inducement or fraud; these are legally distinct questions. The report also conflates “tribal population” in India with “indigenous peoples”, contrary to India’s constitutional framework and its explanation at the adoption of UNDRIP.
- India remains firmly committed to protecting freedom of religion or belief including funeral rites.
Thank you.
Statement (Full text) by India in the Agenda Item 3 Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, during the 61st Session of the Human Rights Council (23 Feb – 31 March 2026), Geneva, 3 March 2026
Subject of the report: How freedom of religion or belief relates to death and honouring the deceased (A/HRC/61/50)
Mr. President,
India takes note of the report presented by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. We acknowledge that States have a constitutional obligation to ensure that deceased persons are treated with dignity and respect, including in the handling of human remains.
India is a multilingual, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, where funeral and burial practices are as diverse as its faiths and communities. These are governed by a combination of general laws, religious personal laws and local regulations, underpinned by a strong legal and social commitment to non-discrimination.
We regret that the report gives space to politically motivated and factually incorrect allegations advanced by a narrow set of self-styled advocacy organisations with a well-documented record of ideological bias and hostility towards India. Reliance on such selective and one-sided accounts leads to a portrayal that fails to reflect India’s scale, diversity and robust constitutional protections.
Mr. President,
Issues relating to burial or cremation sites in India, when they arise, are typically localised, fact-specific disputes shaped by land-use considerations, community preferences and urban-planning or public-health factors. They do not reflect any State policy of discrimination, nor a pattern of denying funeral rights on the basis of religion or belief. Such disputes are adjudicated by independent courts, subject to constitutional guarantees and statutory protections, including those contained in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The report itself acknowledges that regulation of burial and cremation is generally carried out by local public authorities and informed by local customs and traditions. This is also the case in India, where questions regarding the location, expansion or use of burial and cremation grounds are primarily addressed by municipal and local bodies, often in consultation with affected communities. It is therefore inaccurate to extrapolate from isolated, contested local disputes any generalized conclusion about India’s overall approach to funeral rights. India shares the objective of ensuring that all communities, including tribal communities, can honour their dead in accordance with their traditions, consistent with national law.
We also reject the attempt to link such localised burial-related disputes with certain State-level laws that regulate religious conversion by force, inducement or fraudulent means. These are conceptually and legally distinct issues.
The report further conflates the notion of “tribal population” in the Indian context with the term “indigenous peoples”. We would encourage the Special Rapporteur to engage more closely with India’s constitutional framework, in particular the Fifth Schedule and related provisions, as well as India’s statement at the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to understand this context. Unlike situations where colonization led to the dispossession of a pre-existing indigenous population by settler communities, India’s freedom was secured through a home-grown, pan-Indian struggle led by its own people, and power was transferred back to the people of India as a whole. India therefore does not subscribe to any definition of “indigenous peoples” that would artificially segment its population, all of whom are indigenous to the country in a broad historical sense.
Mr. President,
India’s unity is anchored in a long civilizational tradition of respecting and celebrating diversity. The Constitution guarantees to all persons freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion, alongside equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Any person, including members of religious minorities, whose fundamental rights are allegedly violated may directly approach the Supreme Court of India or the High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. These courts have wide powers to enforce fundamental rights and provide effective remedies.
In addition, the National Commission for Minorities, established in 1992, has a broad mandate to consider complaints regarding deprivation of the rights and safeguards of minorities and to promote dialogue, inclusion and diversity, including through support for open civic space and inter-faith dialogue. In recent years it has received roughly 6,000 petitions concerning alleged rights violations, approximately 70 per cent of which have been investigated and resolved. Other statutory bodies, including the National Human Rights Commission, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and State-level minorities and human rights commissions, also provide avenues of redress.
For India, freedom of religion or belief and the principle of non-discrimination are mutually reinforcing. Our constitutional architecture, legislation and administrative practice are designed to ensure that no individual is discriminated against on grounds of religion, including in relation to burial, cremation or other funeral rites. At the same time, in a plural society where different faiths coexist in close proximity, the rights of all must be balanced. The manifestation of religion or belief, including through funerary practices, must be exercised with due regard to the rights and freedoms of others and to legitimate concerns of public order, health and the environment, as reflected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In conclusion, India reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the protection of freedom of religion or belief for all, including in relation to funeral rites and honouring the deceased. Our plural, democratic and constitutional order seeks to ensure that individuals and communities of all faiths can live, die and be remembered in dignity.
We encourage future reports under this mandate to rely on objective, evidence-based assessments that take due account of constitutional safeguards, judicial practice and the diversity of domestic experiences, so that the Human Rights Council may benefit from balanced and constructive analysis.
***
