New Delhi took the floor at the United Nations on Thursday, 16 October, to dispute the body's practice of drawing on unattributed submissions when making assertions about the treatment of minors within the country. At the 81st UN General Assembly Third Committee session, the delegate speaking on behalf of India took issue with a UN document on youth activism that portrayed the country as suppressing young people, describing the report's contents as unverified claims packaged in the format of an official UN publication.

Anuj Swarup, serving as First Secretary within India's delegation, took issue with the methodology of Special Rapporteur Gina Romero — whose mandate covers peaceful assembly and association rights — characterising her work as lacking verification and as undermining the standing of the UN's human rights bodies, and contending that this pattern of conduct accounted for what he described as the organisation's diminished credibility.

During an interactive dialogue with Gina Romero, India put forward a position opposing the report titled 'Youth activism: from systemic exclusion to real participation' — a document that examines the obstacles young people encounter when attempting to exercise their rights to peaceful assembly, association, and political participation.

The document's assertion that young people in India faced retaliation or stigmatisation for raising mental health or gender justice concerns drew a rebuttal from Swarup, who argued that broad allegations directed at the world's largest youth population — built on anonymous, unverified accounts — fall short of constituting evidence, and who conveyed that the country does not accept the finding. He urged the Special Rapporteur to back any allegations with verifiable evidence before making findings public, describing the document as unconfirmed accounts wrapped in formal UN terminology.

Compiled by Romero and dated 15 July 2026, the document draws on a pool of 190 responses gathered from ten states, an ombudsperson's office, various non-governmental organisations, youth-led groups, and 180 young people who submitted their views directly. Perspectives gathered through engagement with upwards of 500 organisations and activists rooted in youth leadership across the globe also feed into the document.

Youth activism forms the lens through which the work surveys 97 states and regions, drawing its scope well beyond any single country. Within its treatment of educational institutions and academic freedom, a passage directed specifically at India makes an appearance. According to the findings, young people in India who raised concerns about mental health or gender justice faced backlash or social stigma as a result. Those contributors go unnamed in that section of the report.

Article 19 of the constitution, Swarup noted, lays out enforceable rights covering assembly, association, and expression, with an independent judiciary, a free press, and the National Human Rights Commission each playing a role in upholding those guarantees. Among the points he raised was the government's handling of public unrest over irregularities in examination processes, noting that parliamentary action had updated the Public Examinations Act, toughened penalties tied to paper leaks, and brought forward a set of reforms to how examinations are conducted.

During the Viksit Bharat Young Leaders Dialogue, upwards of five million young people took part in setting national priorities and held direct exchanges with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Swarup noted. Those programmes, he contended, reflected active youth engagement with India's democratic processes — a dimension the Special Rapporteur had failed to take into account.

A formal request from India directed Romero toward stricter standards of accuracy and balance in her coverage.