India Slams UN Rapporteur Over Dawood Ibrahim Report, Says Underworld Don Resides in Pakistan

India has criticised UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul over a counter-terrorism report concerning underworld figure Dawood Ibrahim, alleging factual inaccuracies and calling for greater impartiality and accountability in the UN human rights system. New Delhi also reiterated its position on Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh while opposing what it described as the selective use of human rights mechanisms against countries.

India on Wednesday strongly criticised UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul over a counter-terrorism report that described Dawood Ibrahim as the leader of the “India-based” D-Company criminal gang with terrorist links. Addressing the UN General Assembly, Raghoo Puri, First Secretary at India’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, expressed serious concern over what he called factual inaccuracies in reports issued by special mandate holders without adequate accountability.

Puri said the publication of reports containing disputed or inaccurate information could undermine the credibility of the United Nations. He argued that member states should be able to expect high standards of accuracy, impartiality and responsibility from UN officials.

“This presents Member States with a fait accompli, which is unfortunate for this organisation that is facing challenges of legitimacy,” he told the assembly.

India Challenges the Report’s Account of Dawood Ibrahim

Puri took particular issue with the report’s reference to Dawood Ibrahim and the UN Security Council’s decision to list the D-Company leader in 2003 over links to Al-Qaeda.

According to Puri, the account did not adequately reflect the circumstances surrounding Dawood’s wanted status in India and the allegations linking D-Company to terrorist attacks dating back to 1993.

He said the relevant information was recorded in the narrative summary of reasons for listing under the UN Security Council’s 1267 sanctions regime.

“Not mentioning this fact is regrettable, and such incompetence on the part of special mandate holders does this organisation tremendous harm,” Puri said.

The Indian diplomat also stated that Dawood remained a wanted criminal in India and referred to the UN listing entry indicating that he resided in Pakistan. He drew a comparison with Osama bin Laden, who was found and killed by US forces in Pakistan in 2011.

India’s objection centred on what it viewed as an incomplete presentation of the background to Dawood’s listing and the allegations against D-Company.

India Says Human Rights Must Not Be Used to Justify Terrorism

India also challenged what it characterised as bias in the report, arguing that human rights principles should not be invoked to shield individuals or groups accused of 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,” he added.

New Delhi’s position reflects its broader argument that international human rights and counter-terrorism mechanisms should apply consistent standards and should not overlook allegations of terrorism while assessing state actions.

India Rejects Pakistan’s Remarks on Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh

Puri also responded to remarks made by Pakistan’s delegation at the UN, rejecting its statements concerning India, including the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

He described Pakistan’s remarks as propaganda intended to serve narrow political interests and alleged that the country’s military played a decisive role in shaping its position.

Reiterating India’s official stance, Puri said Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh were integral parts of the country.

“I would like to reiterate for the record that Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are inalienable parts of India, have been so, and will always remain so,” he said.

The exchange highlighted continuing diplomatic differences between India and Pakistan over Kashmir at international forums.

India Pushes Back Against UN Human Rights Criticism

The latest remarks came amid a wider disagreement between New Delhi and UN human rights experts over reports and statements concerning developments in India.

On Tuesday, India argued that human rights mechanisms should not be used to exert political pressure on countries or selectively target particular governments.

Barkha Tamrakar, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, delivered India’s statement before the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee. She said India’s engagement with international human rights mechanisms should be guided by dialogue, consultation, cooperation, transparency and non-selectivity.

Tamrakar also said India was prepared to address specific cases supported by appropriate documentation through established procedures. However, she opposed the use of unverified allegations, incomplete statistics or reports lacking country-specific observations to portray India negatively.

Her statement followed concerns raised by more than 20 UN human rights experts in Geneva over what they described as a repeatedly heavy-handed police response to youth-led protests in Delhi and other areas.

The experts called on Indian authorities to protect peaceful demonstrations and ensure accountability for alleged human rights violations during recent and earlier protests.

India disputed the criticism and questioned the basis on which the allegations had been presented.

Earlier Dispute Over a Report on a Youth-Led Political Movement

Last week, India also rejected as “hearsay” a report by a UN human rights expert that referred to a satirical political movement formed by young people in the country and alleged that its members had faced retaliation.

New Delhi urged the expert to verify the claims before drawing conclusions based on what it described as unverified allegations.

The successive exchanges point to growing differences between India and some UN human rights mandate holders over the accuracy of reports, the interpretation of evidence and the role of international scrutiny.

A Wider Debate Over Impartiality and Accountability

India’s objections raise broader questions about how UN special rapporteurs gather information, present allegations and ensure that their reports accurately reflect relevant evidence. At the same time, concerns raised by UN experts over police conduct and the protection of peaceful protest remain part of the wider human rights debate.

The latest confrontation underscores the importance of accuracy, transparency and consistent standards in international reporting, particularly when allegations involve terrorism, state conduct and civil liberties.

For India, the central message is that counter-terrorism efforts and human rights principles should not be treated as competing objectives, and that international mechanisms must apply their standards impartially. The episode also illustrates the continuing diplomatic tensions surrounding terrorism, Pakistan and Kashmir at the United Nations.