Raghoo Puri, First Secretary at India’s Permanent Mission to the UN, raised the objection during Wednesday’s meeting of the General Assembly’s Third Committee, challenging a report submitted by Ben Saul, the Special Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
Puri said the report misleadingly described D-Company as operating from India despite Ibrahim having fled the country long before his inclusion on a UN Security Council sanctions list in 2003.
The diplomat argued that the report omitted crucial information establishing that Ibrahim had been wanted in India over terrorist attacks dating back to 1993. He said the omission distorted the circumstances surrounding the gangster’s international designation.
“Read in isolation, this line paints a very different picture from the actual reality,” Puri told the committee, referring to the report’s description of the organisation and its leader.
The disputed passage stated that the Security Council had listed the leader of the India-based D-Company in 2003 because of his association with Al-Qaeda. New Delhi maintains that the geographical description creates a misleading impression about the organisation’s location and Ibrahim’s whereabouts.
Puri pointed to the narrative summary accompanying Ibrahim’s listing under the Security Council’s 1267 sanctions regime, arguing that the document clearly establishes his status as a fugitive wanted over terrorism-related offences.
“Not mentioning this fact is regrettable, and such incompetence on part of special mandate holders does this organisation tremendous harm,” he said.
He emphasised that Ibrahim had left India well before the sanctions designation and that his alleged connections with Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were identified while he was outside the country.
Puri also asserted that Ibrahim resides in the same country where bin Laden was discovered and killed, an unmistakable reference to Pakistan. Bin Laden was killed during a United States military operation in Abbottabad in May 2011.
New Delhi has consistently maintained that Ibrahim is sheltered in Pakistan, although Islamabad has denied harbouring him. His precise whereabouts have not been independently established.
Beyond the geographical dispute, Puri questioned the accountability of UN-appointed experts responsible for preparing reports submitted to member states.
He said India’s delegation had repeatedly expressed concern about special rapporteurs publishing documents containing factual inaccuracies without facing adequate scrutiny or accountability for their contents.
Such circumstances, he argued, leave governments confronting established reports whose disputed assertions may already have entered the international institutional record.
Puri described the situation as particularly unfortunate for an organisation confronting wider questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness.
The intervention also raised concerns about impartiality in international counter-terrorism discussions, with New Delhi maintaining that human rights protections must not become a justification for overlooking terrorist activities or providing legitimacy to extremist organisations.
India’s objections were directed at the report’s presentation of Ibrahim’s circumstances rather than the Security Council’s underlying decision to sanction him for alleged terrorist associations.
The distinction is significant because the sanctions designation concerns Ibrahim individually, while the disputed wording characterises the geographical identity of the wider criminal network.
Saul’s report examines the relationship between organised crime and terrorism, including circumstances in which criminal organisations or their leaders become subject to international counter-terrorism measures.
The disagreement highlights the importance governments attach to terminology used in UN documents, particularly where descriptions of criminal networks could be interpreted as identifying their territorial bases.
Special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed through the UN Human Rights Council’s special procedures system. They investigate thematic human rights issues and present findings and recommendations, but their reports do not automatically constitute binding decisions by the United Nations.
The Third Committee considers human rights, humanitarian and social questions, providing a forum for governments to scrutinise the findings of independent mandate holders and place objections on the diplomatic record.
During the same proceedings, Puri also rejected remarks by Pakistan concerning Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, characterising them as politically motivated propaganda.
He maintained that terrorism could not be justified and that international human rights mechanisms should not provide protection for individuals promoting radicalisation or extremism.
The exchange took place during the committee’s interactive dialogue with the special rapporteur, where participating delegations were able to respond to his findings and raise questions about the report’s contents.
