Indian envoy slams USCIRF over Sharjeel Imam remarks, says panel has ‘no locus standi’

India’s Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Mohan Kwatra, on Saturday (November 14, 2026) slammed the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) over its remarks on jailed activist Sharjeel Imam, asserting that the commission had “no locus standi” to pass judgment on the constitutional rights of Indian citizens.

In a strongly worded post on X, Mr. Kwatra rejected the commission’s assessment, accusing it of making partisan and ill-informed observations about India’s commitment to religious freedom and equal rights. “USCRIF has no locus standi to sit in judgment over the constitutional rights of Indian citizens. Its habitual partisan, ill-informed, and jaundiced assessments cannot diminish India’s constitutional commitment to religious freedom and equal rights for all faiths,” Mr. Kwatra said.

“India flourishes defying the agenda-driven partisan narratives of the USCIRF. Taking the same liberty that USCIRF so readily assumes, a word of advice: introspect on your own prejudices and stop lecturing others,” he added.

The ambassador’s remarks came after the USCIRF shared Imam’s profile on X, describing him as “a Muslim man detained in India for his religious freedom advocacy.” The commission’s post characterised Mr. Imam’s detention as being linked to his advocacy for religious freedom, a description that drew a sharp response from the Indian envoy.

Sharjeel Imam, a former student activist, was arrested in January 2020 in connection with protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which took place in December 2019 and January 2020. Authorities accused him of delivering speeches that allegedly incited communal violence. In August 2020, he was charged in connection with FIR 59/2020, relating to the larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The charges invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including those relating to rioting, murder, promoting enmity, unlawful activities and alleged terrorist acts. The case is being investigated by the Delhi Police Special Cell.

Separately, on October 10, a Delhi Court declined to entertain a Delhi Police plea seeking cancellation of Mr. Imam’s seven-day interim bail, despite observing that he had apparently violated a condition restricting his interaction with the media. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts examined video footage submitted by the prosecution, which allegedly showed Imam present in a room where a media person was interviewing his brother. The prosecution contended that Mr. Imam had breached the bail conditions by coming into contact with a media person. However, his counsel denied the allegations, arguing that the footage did not establish any direct interaction between Imam and the journalist.

Imam had been granted interim bail from October 4 to October 10 to attend his cousin’s wedding functions. The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting him from using social media, interacting with media persons and meeting individuals other than family members, relatives and friends. Taking note of the defence’s submission that Mr. Imam had boarded a flight to Delhi and would surrender before jail authorities that evening, the Court declined to cancel his interim bail and disposed of the police application.