Statement by India in the Agenda Item 3 Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, during the 61st Session of the Human Rights Council (23 Feb – 31 March 2026), Geneva, 10 March 2026

Full Text of India’s intervention

Subject of the report: Defining terrorism to respect and protect human rights (A/HRC/61/52)

Mr. President,

Terrorism is among the most egregious violations of human rights and that can be no justification, especially when innocent lives are targeted. Confronting terrorism requires collective resolve, and we look at this Council to advocate zero tolerance for terrorist acts.

Countries that use terrorism as a tool of state policy inevitably suffer its consequences when those forces turn against them.

The international community, including UN experts, must demonstrate consistency in condemning terrorist attacks.

We would also like to emphasize not to mix rights of genuine human rights defenders, who must be protected, with those who exploit human rights narratives to evade the law.

Mr. President

Moving to our comments on the report, the proposed model definition and the overall report by the SR raises several concerns.

To start with, International counter-terrorism law has evolved primarily through a sectoral convention approach, addressing specific manifestations of terrorism through binding treaty instruments. These conventions criminalize conduct such as Aircraft hijacking, Hostage-taking, Terrorist bombings, Financing of terrorism, and Acts involving nuclear terrorism.

Several of these conventions recognize that terrorism may involve acts intended to cause extensive destruction or major economic loss, even where death or serious injury has not yet occurred. This reflects the long-standing understanding that terrorist attacks frequently target critical infrastructure to produce systemic coercive effects on societies and governments. The model definition proposed in the Special Rapporteur's report, by restricting the core offence primarily to lethal violence, risks departing from this established trajectory of international treaty practice.

Second, the report risks legitimizing violence by suggesting exceptions and carve outs. Deliberate attacks on civilians can never be justified by political causes. Allowing labels such as ‘Good Terrorist’; or ‘Freedom fighter’ only serve to shield cross-border terrorism and undermine the objective of establishing a universally applicable legal framework against terrorism.

Third, the report proposes that terrorism should require proof of a political or ideological motive. While motive may be analytically relevant in distinguishing terrorism from ordinary crime, international criminal law has traditionally treated motive as evidentiary rather than definitional. These thresholds create significant hurdles in prosecution, especially when terrorist networks hide their affiliations. Counter- terrorism frameworks therefore are required to focus on the nature of the violent act and the intent to intimidate a population or coerce a government.

Fourth, it would be incorrect to assume that absence of universally agreed comprehensive definition of terrorism limits national ability to counter terror threats. Despite no consensus on a universally agreed comprehensive definition of terrorism, UNSC Resolution 1373 and 1624 establish a clear expectation that States must maintain effective and comprehensive domestic legal frameworks capable of preventing and suppressing terrorism in all its manifestations. The absence of a universally agreed treaty definition, therefore cannot be interpreted as limiting the ability of States to enact robust counter-terrorism legislation. What the absence of a universally agreed definition leads to is international cooperation in uprooting terrorism. As a result, this heinous crime tends to survive through cross-border terrorism, terror havens etc. Herein, we would also like to exercise caution when SR mentions ‘comprehensive system of internal and external oversights’ in Paragraph 70. The oversight of national laws is undertaken by the relevant highest court of the land and obligations of the State under the application International Human Rights Law.

Fifth, the report's tendency to delve into an expansive "State terrorism" framing complicates matters unnecessarily. There are already robust and distinct mechanisms under international humanitarian and human rights law designed specifically to counter unlawful State violence.

Sixth, from India’s perspective, activities with the intention to promote secessionism impacts the very core of existence of the state. The freedom of India from colonial powers has been hard won. Actions that promote disunity and attack the sovereignty and integrity of the state have to be dealt with appropriately.

Seventh, the document does not touch upon non-conventional threats while formulating a comprehensive definition of terrorism.

And lastly, India reiterates that arriving at a universal definition of terrorism remains a complex legal challenge, one that requires ongoing deliberation between the member states, within relevant UN forums.

Mr. President,

International human rights law recognizes that States bear positive obligations to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable threats. The obligation of States to prevent and suppress terrorism must also be understood as part of the State's duty to protect fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and security of persons. The protection of these rights requires States to maintain effective legal frameworks capable of deterring and preventing serious acts of violence, including terrorism.

In this context, criminalizing terrorist acts and related conduct such as financing, facilitation, recruitment and incitement serves a preventive human rights function, enabling authorities to intervene before attacks result in large-scale loss of life or harm to civilian populations.

At the same time, counter-terrorism laws must comply with fundamental safeguards, including the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality; and Judicial oversight and due process guarantees.

The challenge therefore lies not in choosing between security and human rights, but in ensuring that counter-terrorism measures remain both operationally effective and consistent with international human rights obligations. Effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights should therefore be understood as mutually reinforcing obligations, rather than competing priorities.

A balanced approach should seek to preserve the capacity of States to address the full spectrum of contemporary terrorist threats, including attacks on critical infrastructure, financial systems and essential services with adequate human rights safeguards. Such an approach would remain consistent with the international community's long-standing objective of achieving consensus on a comprehensive convention against terrorism.

Let me conclude by reiterating that India remains firmly committed to combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations while upholding its human rights obligations.

***