India’s (Non)Compliance with International Law on Children’s Rights in Conflict Zones
India, as the world’s largest democracy and a signatory to key international human rights instruments, has committed to upholding the rights of children, particularly in conflict zones. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and its Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict bind India to international standards prohibiting the recruitment, detention, and mistreatment of children.[1] However, reports from conflict-affected regions such as Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states indicate systemic violations of these obligations.[2] This blog post examines India’s adherence to international law concerning children’s rights in conflict zones, highlights existing gaps in implementation, and argues for stronger alignment with global legal frameworks.
India’s International Obligations
India ratified the CRC in 1992 and the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict in 2005, legally obliging itself to protect children from recruitment and use in hostilities.[3] Under the CRC, India must ensure the respect and rights of all children in its jurisdiction, regardless of their background. This includes, inter alia, the right to protection from war, protection from exploitation, non-discrimination, the right to education, and the right to health and health services.[4] To comply with its international obligations, India must submit regular reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, detailing its progress in fulfilling children’s rights in its territory.
Additionally, under customary international humanitarian law and principles of human rights law, India must ensure that children in conflict zones are safeguarded from violence, arbitrary detention, and disruptions to their education and well-being.[5] The best interests of the child principle, enshrined in Article 3 of the CRC, further necessitates that state actions prioritize children’s welfare in all circumstances.
India is subject to periodic reviews by international human rights bodies, including the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which has repeatedly raised concerns regarding the treatment of children in conflict zones.[6] For example, the Committee criticized India’s “lack of age-appropriate separation of children in conflict with the law in Observation Homes (which are intended for temporary reception and upon completion of an inquiry) and Special Homes (for children who have been sentenced), and cases of children in conflict with the law being housed together with children in need of protection.”[7] Furthermore, the UN Secretary-General’s annual report on children and armed conflict has flagged concerns about the situation in India, urging compliance with international standards. In 2022, he identified grave violations against children and indicated that “all practical measures agreed to… be fully implemented….”[8] Importantly, the UN Secretary-General did remove India from the 2023 report, noting that progress had been made.[9]
Nonetheless, there is still much to be done to fulfill its duties to the children within its territory. If it fails to uphold its obligations under the CRC and other international frameworks, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Concluding Observations, in UN Special Procedures and Thematic Reports, the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review, and other civil society and domestic accountability mechanisms can identify such violations. While some mechanisms may not be legally binding, investigations and reports of violations can lead to domestic pressure, calls to reform, reputational damage, accountability under customary international law, and of course, domestic legal accountability.
Systemic Violations in Conflict Zones
Despite these commitments, reports indicate continued violations of children’s rights in conflict-affected regions of India. For instance, in Jammu and Kashmir, authorities have reportedly detained minors under the Public Safety Act (PSA), which permits detention without trial for up to two years.[10] These detentions often occur without due process, violating Article 37 of the CRC, which prohibits arbitrary detention of children and mandates humane treatment of juvenile detainees.[11] Moreover, the use of force against minors, including pellet gun injuries documented in Kashmir, raises serious concerns regarding compliance with international legal standards.[12]
Beyond detention and physical harm, prolonged security lockdowns and internet restrictions in conflict zones have severely impacted children’s education.[13] According to UNICEF, access to education is a fundamental right that must be protected even during emergencies.[14] However, frequent school closures in areas experiencing unrest undermine children’s right to education, violating Article 28 of the CRC.[15]
The Role of International Mechanisms in Accountability
A key issue contributing to India’s non-compliance with international law on children’s rights is the limited application of international accountability mechanisms. While the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict have highlighted violations, enforcement remains weak. India has consistently rejected external monitoring and has not granted access to UN Special Rapporteurs on human rights issues.[16] In response, UN Special Procedures reports called for India to “implement its human rights obligations in full” and to “remedy [the] ‘alarming’ human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir” by enhancing its cooperation with UN mechanisms.[17] India has expressed its reservations about external monitoring, attributing concerns about sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs and national order.[18] Ultimately, The absence of legally binding international scrutiny limits the effectiveness of global human rights instruments in addressing these violations.
Additionally, international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented abuses but face restrictions in conducting fieldwork within India.[19] Strengthening India’s engagement with these organizations and allowing greater transparency could enhance compliance with international obligations.
Aligning Domestic Policies with International Law
To bridge the gap between commitment and compliance, India must take steps to align its domestic policies with international human rights norms. This includes:
Fully implementing the CRC and its Optional Protocols in national legislation and ensuring that domestic laws explicitly prohibit the detention and mistreatment of children in conflict zones.
South Africa incorporated CRC principles into its domestic legal framework through the Children’s Act of 2005 to ensure that international children’s rights obligations translated into enforceable national laws. India could follow this by amending their existing Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act to prohibit the detention and mistreatment of children in conflict zones, upholding international rights.
Ratifying the Third Optional Protocol to the CRC on a communications procedure, which would allow children and their representatives to file complaints with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Strengthening cooperation with UN bodies, including permitting country visits by UN Special Rapporteurs and engaging in constructive dialogue on compliance issues.
To ease India’s sovereignty concerns, India could begin by allowing limited and controlled visits that focus on technical cooperation rather than investigative mandates. This can include limited and structured engagement with UN bodies to improve policies and train personnel concerning child protection, ultimately emphasizing their internally driven reforms.
Participating in international human rights reviews with a commitment to implementing recommendations related to children’s rights.
These would signal cooperation with international bodies without subjecting itself to diplomatic and reputational damage. Adequately adhering to international rights through India’s domestic policies would increase electoral legitimacy by reducing public, political, and litigious pressure. It would further strengthen the effectiveness of its existing institutions like the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. Internationally, adherence would increase India’s reputation, opportunities for trade, investment, and other economic benefits, and decrease plausible sanctions for violating human rights.
While India has made formal commitments to uphold children’s rights under international law, its actions in conflict zones reveal significant implementation gaps. Arbitrary detentions, the use of force against minors, and restrictions on education in regions like Jammu and Kashmir illustrate a failure to meet international legal obligations. To bridge these gaps, India must align its domestic policies with international human rights standards, engage with global accountability mechanisms, and commit to stronger enforcement of its international legal commitments. Without such measures, the protection of children in conflict-affected areas will remain an unfulfilled obligation rather than a genuine state priority.
United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).↑
Amnesty International, “India: Authorities Must End Repression of Dissent in Jammu and Kashmir” (2024).↑
UN Treaty Collection, Status of Treaties, Convention on the Rights of the Child.↑
United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).↑
Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and II (1977).↑
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on India (2000).↑
Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the combined third and fourth periodic reports of India, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/IND/CO/3-4 (July 7, 2014).↑
U.N. Secretary-General, Children and Armed Conflict, U.N. Doc. A/76/871-S/2022/493 (June 23, 2022).↑
U.N. Secretary-General, Children and Armed Conflict, U.N. Doc. A/77/895-S/2023/363 (June 5, 2023).↑
India 2023, Amnesty Int’l, https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/india/report-india/.↑
CRC, supra note 1, at Article 37.↑
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Update of the Situation of Human Rights in Indian-Administered Kashmir and Pakistan-Administered Kashmir from May 2018 to April 2019 (July 1, 2019).↑
Education under attack: Attacks on schools, students and educators are attacks on children’s right to an education – and on their futures, UNICEF. ↑
Id.; CRC, supra note 1, at Article 28.↑
CRC, supra note 1, at Article 28.↑
Press Release, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, India: UN experts urge corrective action to protect human rights and end attacks against minorities in lead up to elections Mar. 7, 2024).↑
Id; Press Release, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN experts call for urgent action to remedy “alarming” human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir, (Aug. 4, 2020).↑
See Press Release, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN rights experts urge India to repeal law restricting NGO’s access to crucial foreign funding (June 16, 2016); India Should Stop Using Abusive Foreign Funding Law, Amnesty Int’l (Jan. 19, 2022), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2022/01/india-should-stop-using-abusive-foreign-funding-law/.↑
DW Team, HRW’s call for human rights in India’s 2024 elections, digwatch (Apr. 8, 2024), https://dig.watch/updates/hrws-call-for-human-rights-in-indias-2024-elections; World Report, India, Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/india; India 2023, supra note 10.↑
