New York: India has accused a United Nations special rapporteur of "glaring factual inaccuracies" in a report on counter-terrorism and human rights, and demanded accountability for claims it says misrepresent where one of the world's most wanted fugitives actually lives.
Raghoo Puri, First Secretary at India's Permanent Mission to the United Nations, told the UN General Assembly on Wednesday that the July report by Ben Saul, the special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, described Dawood Ibrahim — the leader of the D-Company criminal network — as "India-based."
"Let me correct it for the record," Puri said.
"This individual fled India much before the 2003 listing, and it was during this period from outside our country that he was listed for being associated with al-Qaeda and with Osama bin Laden," he said, making an unmistakable reference to Pakistan.
"To date, he remains a wanted criminal in my country, and as per the UN's listing entry, resides in the same country where Osama bin Laden was found and neutralised," Puri added, pointing to Abbottabad in Pakistan, where US Navy SEALs killed the al-Qaeda leader in a 2011 raid.
The intervention was aimed at a specific passage in Saul's report which noted that the UN Security Council had in 2003 listed the leader of one criminal group, D-Company, for association with al-Qaeda. Puri argued that read in isolation, the line "paints a very different picture from the actual reality."
"This organisation and its listed leader, Dawood Ibrahim, has been wanted in India for terror attacks since 1993," Puri said, noting that this is stated plainly in the narrative summary of the reasons for the listing under the 1267 sanctions regime — the UN Security Council's sanctions framework for al-Qaeda and associated groups.
"Not mentioning this fact is regrettable, and such incompetence on the part of special mandate holders does this organisation tremendous harm," he said.
India's objections went beyond the Dawood Ibrahim passage. Puri told the Assembly that India was seriously concerned about the "unacceptable situation" of the special rapporteur releasing reports with factual inaccuracies while not being held accountable for them.
"This presents Member States with a fait accompli, which is unfortunate for this organisation that is facing challenges of legitimacy," he said.
Special rapporteurs are independent experts who report to the UN Human Rights Council. They are not paid directly by the United Nations and are expected to work independently of it, but their findings carry the imprimatur of the UN system — which is precisely why New Delhi argued that errors in them matter.
Puri stressed that India expects strict adherence to standards of impartiality from mandate holders, and said the bias evident in the report raised questions about how counter-terrorism assessments are being produced within the UN machinery.
He also turned the criticism around, arguing that the report's framing reflected a wider problem: the misuse of the human rights framework to shield those responsible for terrorism.
"It seems to have become fashionable for sponsors of terror to use human rights and the framework of counterterrorism to justify their misdeeds," Puri said. "The human rights framework cannot be the refuge of the perpetrators of terror and those who propagate radicalisation and extremism. Terrorism can never be justified."
Dawood Ibrahim remains one of the most wanted men in India and is listed under the UN Security Council's sanctions regime. Indian agencies have sought his custody for decades, and New Delhi has repeatedly told the international community that he is sheltered in Pakistan — a charge Islamabad has consistently denied.
The timing of India's intervention reflects a broader pattern in which New Delhi has grown more assertive at the United Nations in pushing back against reports and statements it considers hostile or inaccurate. In recent sessions, Indian diplomats have used the Assembly floor to challenge what they describe as selective targeting by UN experts and to demand that counter-terrorism assessments distinguish between perpetrators and victims.
For India, the Dawood Ibrahim correction is about more than one fugitive. By insisting that the UN's own listing entry places him in the same country where bin Laden was found and killed, Puri was making a larger argument about state sponsorship of terrorism — and about whether the UN system is willing to state that plainly.
Whether the special rapporteur's office revises the report remains to be seen. What India has made clear is that it intends to contest inaccurate portrayals of its security concerns at the highest international forum, and to hold the UN's own expert machinery to the standards it claims to uphold.
The 1267 sanctions regime under which Dawood Ibrahim was listed is the Security Council's primary instrument for targeting al-Qaeda and associated individuals and entities. Listings under the regime require a narrative summary of the reasons, and it is that document — produced by the UN itself — that records Dawood Ibrahim as having been wanted in India for terror attacks since 1993.
India's point was that the rapporteur's report could not credibly cite the 2003 listing while ignoring what the listing record itself says about the fugitive's history.
New Delhi has also long argued that the international counter-terrorism architecture suffers from double standards, with listing and delisting decisions reflecting geopolitical convenience rather than evidence. Indian diplomats have repeatedly told the Security Council that terrorists and their sponsors must face a consistent standard regardless of which country they are based in, and that delays and blocks in the listing process weaken the credibility of the entire system.
Pakistan has consistently denied that Dawood Ibrahim is in the country, even as Indian and international reporting has placed him in Karachi for decades. Indian officials have pointed to the bin Laden precedent — the al-Qaeda leader was found living in a compound in Abbottabad, close to a military academy — as reason for scepticism about such denials.
The debate over the rapporteur's report is likely to feed into wider discussions at the United Nations about the accountability of special procedures. India is not the first country to complain that rapporteurs issue findings without adequate fact-checking, but its demand for accountability — rather than merely a correction — signals a sharper posture.
(Reporting based on NDTV and Hindustan Times.)