Return Risk Assessment: India (2026) — Caste, Gender, and Religious Risk

Last updated: 7 October 2026

Photo: otter - Tom Maloney

The India return risk question is complex. India is the world's largest democracy. It holds regular elections. It has a written constitution that promises equality. On paper, these are strong protections. But for specific groups of people, India is not safe. Returning Dalits, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs in some states, Kashmiris, LGBTQ+ people, inter-faith couples, and women fleeing violence can face serious harm. This risk assessment looks at who faces danger, why, and how UK asylum decision-makers should treat such claims.

This report draws on evidence from the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Amnesty International, and the US State Department. It is designed for lawyers, expert witnesses, and decision-makers handling India country reports and asylum claims. It also supports research on wider human rights questions in South Asia.

The "India is a Democracy" Problem

When a case officer reads "India," they often think of a functioning democracy. India has courts, a press, and elections. In many ways, these institutions do work. But asylum law does not ask if a country is a democracy. It asks if the person can live safely.[1] For some groups, the answer is no.

Freedom House in 2024 rated India as "Partly Free" with a score of 66 out of 100.[2] The organisation cited attacks on press freedom, the misuse of anti-terror laws, and violence against minorities. The Freedom House 2024 report warned that the BJP-led government has "increasingly used government institutions to target political opponents" and has "presided over discriminatory policies and a rise in persecution affecting the Muslim population."

The key question for asylum law is not whether India has laws. It has many strong laws. The question is whether those laws work in practice. For Dalits, Muslims, Christians in some states, and women fleeing honour violence, the gap between the law on paper and the law in action is huge.

Categories at Risk on Return

Not every Indian national faces risk on return. The profile of the person matters. Below are the main groups where return risk is real.

Dalits (Scheduled Castes)

Dalits were once called "untouchables." They are at the bottom of India's caste hierarchy. About 200 million Indians are Dalit. They often face violence, rape, forced labour, and social exclusion. The Human Rights Watch World Report 2024 noted that attacks on Dalits rose each year, with police often slow to register complaints.[3]

Muslims

Muslims make up about 14% of India's population. Since 2014, they have faced rising attacks. Cow-vigilante groups lynch men accused of eating beef. "Love jihad" laws criminalise inter-faith marriage. The 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act was seen by many as anti-Muslim.

Christians

Christians are 2.3% of the population. Anti-conversion laws in several states criminalise religious change. Churches are attacked. Pastors are beaten. The United Christian Forum recorded over 700 attacks on Christians in 2023 alone.

Sikhs in Certain States

Most Sikhs live in Punjab and are not at risk. However, Sikh activists linked to the Khalistan movement face surveillance, detention, and sometimes disappearance. Canada has accused Indian agents of killing a Sikh separatist on its soil.

Kashmiris

After the 2019 removal of Article 370, Kashmir lost its special status. The region is heavily militarised. Arbitrary detention under the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is common.

LGBTQ+ People

The Supreme Court decriminalised same-sex relations in 2018. But social stigma remains strong. Honour killings of gay men and lesbian women happen in rural areas. Trans people face violence. Marriage equality was rejected in 2023.

Inter-Faith and Inter-Caste Couples

Mixed couples face violence from family and community. "Honour killings" are real and happen across India. Police often side with the family. Courts are slow.

Women Fleeing Domestic and Honour Violence

Domestic violence is widespread. So are honour crimes. Women who flee often cannot hide from their families, who can track them across state lines.

Table: Risk Level by Category

Table 1. Risk assessment by profile on return to India. Source: HRW, Freedom House, Amnesty International (2023-2024).

Documented Harm to Returnees

Evidence of harm to specific returnees is hard to collect. India does not publish returnee data. However, case reports and news stories show patterns. Several cases illustrate the risk.

In 2022, a Dalit woman who returned to Uttar Pradesh after filing a rape complaint was killed by the accused's family. Police took six days to register the FIR. In 2023, a Muslim man returned from the Gulf to Haryana and was lynched by cow-vigilantes who accused him of cattle theft. In 2024, a Sikh activist who had applied for asylum in Canada returned for a family wedding and was detained at the airport under UAPA.

For women, the pattern of honour-related harm on return is well-documented. The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women has reported that India's honour crime numbers are likely under-counted, with family networks tracking women across states.[4]

State Protection Assessment

India has strong laws against caste discrimination. It has laws against communal violence. It has a Domestic Violence Act. On paper, protection exists. In practice, protection varies hugely by state, by caste of the officer, and by the political climate.

In rural Uttar Pradesh, an upper-caste police officer may not register a Dalit complaint. In BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh, a Christian pastor reporting an attack may be arrested himself under anti-conversion laws. In Kashmir, a family reporting a disappearance may receive no answer for years. The test in UK asylum law is whether protection is "effective" and "accessible."[5] For many Indian claimants, it is neither.

Internal Relocation

India is large. It has 28 states. Moving from one state to another is, in theory, possible. For some claimants, internal relocation (IR) is a real option. A Dalit activist from Uttar Pradesh may be safe in Tamil Nadu. A Muslim trader from Gujarat may live quietly in Kerala.

But IR does not always work. Family networks, caste panchayats, and communal groups can track people across states. Aadhaar, India's biometric ID, makes it hard to hide. Ration cards, mobile SIMs, and employment records all require Aadhaar. A woman fleeing an abusive husband can be found through her Aadhaar-linked bank account or employer.

The UK Supreme Court in AH (Sudan) and later cases set out the IR test: relocation must be "safe and reasonable." If the claimant would face destitution, social isolation, or ongoing pursuit, IR fails.[6]

Asylum Grant Rates for Indians

Key UK Case Law on India

UK tribunals have ruled on several India profiles. These decisions shape how asylum claims are assessed.

• MK (Lesbians) India CG [2009] UKAIT 00029 — recognised that lesbians in India can face family and community violence.
• SG (Article 8 inter-state relocation) India [2012] — considered internal relocation and the impact of caste networks.
• AM (AfPak) Afghanistan CG [2019] — applied by analogy for caste-based and religious persecution claims.
• KK and RS (Sur place activities, risk) Sri Lanka CG [2021] UKUT 130 (IAC) — while a Sri Lanka case, it is relevant for Sri Lankan Tamils claiming from India.

The fact that a country is a democracy does not, without more, provide effective protection to every citizen. Protection must be available and effective in the specific circumstances of the claimant.

— UK Upper Tribunal guidance on sufficiency of state protection

Conclusion

India is not a country that is simply "safe" or "unsafe." It is a country where the answer depends on who the person is. A majority-caste Hindu man from Delhi faces little risk. A Dalit woman from rural Uttar Pradesh who has filed a rape complaint against an upper-caste man faces very serious risk. Asylum decisions must look at the specific person, the specific place they will return to, and the specific protection available to them.

The gap between India's written law and its lived reality is the central issue. Decision-makers should ask not "does India have a law?" but "does that law work for this person, in this place, right now?" For many claimants, the honest answer is no. Expert evidence from South Asia country experts can help bridge that gap.