Restrictions on Civil Liberties Push Indian Citizens to Flee

Last updated: 16 September 2026

Photo: India - Sam Litvin

India's record on civil liberties in India has deteriorated sharply since 2014. The country now ranks among the world's most frequent users of internet shutdowns, has prosecuted thousands under colonial-era sedition laws, and has seen the closure of leading civil society organisations. For individuals who have engaged in protest, journalism, or human rights advocacy, the risk of targeted prosecution is real and well-documented. This background is directly relevant to asylum and protection claims from Indian nationals.[1]

Internet Shutdowns: The World Leader

India has imposed more internet shutdowns than any other country in the world for several consecutive years. In 2023 alone, India recorded over 100 shutdowns according to Access Now's #KeepItOn coalition.[2] These shutdowns are imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and telecommunications regulations. They disproportionately affect conflict-affected regions including Manipur, Jammu and Kashmir, and Rajasthan during protests.

Kashmiris experienced a continuous internet blackout from August 2019 to February 2021 — over 550 days — described by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression as an unprecedented digital rights violation in a democratic state. Internet shutdowns prevent documentation of human rights abuses, restrict access to medical and legal services, and effectively silence local journalism during the periods when coverage is most urgent.

Sedition and Speech Laws Used Against Critics

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code — the sedition provision — prescribes up to life imprisonment for acts that "bring hatred or contempt" against the government. The Supreme Court stayed all sedition proceedings in May 2022 pending review, but the law has not been repealed. Moreover, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 — which replaced the IPC — introduced a new provision (Section 152) that critics argue replicates sedition by another name.[3]

Students, journalists, and social activists have been the primary targets. Climate activist Disha Ravi was arrested in February 2021 for sharing a "toolkit" in support of farmer protests. Journalist Siddique Kappan was held for nearly two years under UAPA after travelling to cover the Hathras gang-rape case. In addition, the IT Rules 2021 give the government power to compel platforms to remove content and unmask anonymous users.

The Indian government's use of laws targeting sedition, terrorism, and "fake news" has created a chilling effect on journalism, activism, and peaceful dissent across the country.
Amnesty International, Annual Report 2023/24

Closing Civic Space: NGOs and Activists

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) has been used systematically to close down civil society organisations critical of government policy. Over 6,000 NGOs lost their FCRA registration between 2015 and 2023. Organisations affected include Amnesty International India, Greenpeace India, and the Ford Foundation — all of which faced FCRA enforcement action after publishing critical research or funding advocacy work.[4]

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) — both nominally independent agencies — have been used to target opposition politicians, activists, and journalists through prolonged investigations and asset freezes. Critics call this practice "lawfare" — the use of legal processes to exhaust and silence opponents without securing convictions.

Digital Surveillance and the Pegasus Scandal

India was identified in 2021 as one of the countries whose government clients used NSO Group's Pegasus spyware to target journalists, human rights defenders, and opposition politicians. The Pegasus Project investigation — a consortium of international news organisations — identified over 300 Indian phone numbers as potential targets, including those of ministers, election commissioners, and opposition leaders.[5]

The Indian government declined to confirm or deny its use of Pegasus. A Supreme Court-appointed committee found "no conclusive evidence" of government use but noted it had limited access to government cooperation. The episode highlighted India's lack of a comprehensive data protection law and the absence of judicial oversight of surveillance activities.

Implications for Asylum Claims

Individuals who have engaged in political opposition, journalism, environmental activism, student protests, or civil society work in India may face serious risk of prosecution under one or more of the mechanisms outlined above. The profile-dependent nature of these risks makes expert evidence essential in establishing whether a particular individual faces a real risk of persecution.[6]

Decision-makers should not assume that the formal existence of democratic institutions in India provides adequate protection for all individuals. The documented pattern of selective prosecution, legal harassment, and surveillance targeting of critics demonstrates that the state is capable of acting as both a persecutor and a failing protector. See our India expert witness directory and India country reports for specialist support.

Further practitioner guidance is available in our India asylum guide, including analysis of relevant UK Upper Tribunal country guidance.

Conclusion

Restrictions on civil liberties in India are systematic, legally enabled, and internationally documented. From internet shutdowns to FCRA closures, the state has constructed a powerful toolkit for suppressing dissent without resorting to overtly authoritarian methods. For asylum practitioners, this context is essential — particularly for claims involving journalists, activists, minority religious leaders, and anyone who has publicly challenged government policy.