Political Dissenters Targeted in India Under Government Crackdowns

Last updated: 16 September 2026

Photo: India! - Steffi

India's political dissenters face an increasingly hostile environment under a government that has expanded security laws, weaponised tax and investigative agencies, and enabled harassment of journalists and civil society. Since 2014, human rights defenders, academics, lawyers, and opposition politicians have faced arrest under broadly worded legislation. The pattern has intensified since 2019, drawing repeated criticism from the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.[1]

The Crackdown on Civil Society and Political Opposition

India's government has deployed a range of legal tools to silence dissent. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), amended in 2019, allows the state to designate individuals — not just organisations — as terrorists. This enables prolonged pre-trial detention without bail. Bail under UAPA is extremely difficult to secure, as courts must be satisfied that the charges are prima facie untrue — a reversal of the normal presumption of innocence.[2]

The Bhima Koregaon case — in which 16 academics, lawyers, and activists were arrested between 2018 and 2020 — illustrates this pattern. All were charged under UAPA with alleged links to Maoist groups. Several remained in custody for years without trial. Father Stan Swamy, an 83-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist, died in custody in July 2021 while awaiting bail.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), most recently amended in 2020, has been used to cancel the licences of thousands of civil society organisations, including Amnesty International India and several human rights NGOs. Without FCRA registration, organisations cannot receive foreign funding, effectively shutting down many advocacy groups.[3]

Journalists and Press Freedom Under Threat

India ranked 159th out of 180 countries in the 2023 Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom Index — lower than Afghanistan and Myanmar in some categories. Journalists covering Kashmir, communal violence, or government corruption face sedition charges, UAPA cases, and physical attacks.[4]

India is one of the world's most dangerous countries for journalists. The authorities use legal harassment to silence independent reporting, especially on sensitive political topics.
Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index 2023

The BBC's offices in Delhi and Mumbai were raided by income tax authorities in February 2023, following the broadcast of a documentary critical of Prime Minister Modi. Kashmiri journalist Fahad Shah was held for over a year under the Public Safety Act. Meanwhile, government-friendly media outlets receive preferential access and advertising revenue through official channels.

Kashmir: Extended Emergency Measures

The revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370 in August 2019 was accompanied by a sweeping security lockdown. Internet was suspended for over 550 days — the longest internet shutdown in any democracy.[5] Thousands were detained, including former chief ministers, under the Public Safety Act. Political activity remains severely restricted, and the region was converted from a state to a Union Territory, removing democratic self-governance.

Human rights organisations document ongoing extra-judicial killings, torture in detention, and disappearances in Kashmir. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) grants security forces immunity from prosecution, operating as a near-blanket shield against accountability. Consequently, impunity for abuses is structural rather than incidental.

Implications for Asylum and Protection Claims

Individuals fleeing India on grounds of political opinion or association with perceived opposition face substantial challenges, but well-founded claims are recognised by courts in the UK and other jurisdictions. Claims from Kashmiri activists, journalists, Sikh separatists, and individuals designated under UAPA require detailed assessment of the individual's profile and the specific charges they face.[6]

Internal relocation to another Indian state is sometimes suggested by decision-makers. However, federal investigative agencies — including the National Investigation Agency (NIA) — operate nationwide. For individuals targeted by central government, relocation within India may not provide effective protection. Expert witness evidence is essential in these cases. Consult our India expert witness directory and India country reports for case support.

The India asylum guide provides further detail on country guidance cases and the UK Home Office's country policy notes on political dissent and security situations in India.

Conclusion

India's crackdown on political dissent is systematic, legally enabled, and internationally documented. The UAPA, FCRA, sedition laws, and emergency measures in Kashmir together create a landscape where political opposition carries serious legal risk. Journalists face de facto censorship through legal harassment and violence.

Asylum practitioners must look beyond India's formal democratic structures and engage with this documented reality. Superficial assessments that treat India as a full democracy with effective state protection miss the well-evidenced patterns of targeted persecution that underpin many protection claims.