India tells UNSC: Don't use membership to legitimise terrorists or politicise listings

India on Wednesday called on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to ensure that its membership is not used as a tool to “legitimise” terrorists through de-listing or to blacklist entities solely on political grounds. Speaking at an open debate on the Council’s working methods, India’s Chargé d’Affaires to the UN, Ambassador Yojna Patel, stressed the need for greater transparency and objectivity in the listing and de-listing of terrorists under UNSC sanctions regimes.

“Security Council membership brings significant responsibilities. This must not become a platform to pursue narrow political interests,” Ms. Patel said. She specifically pointed to the listing and de-listing process, arguing that decisions must be based on objective criteria and supporting documentation, not political convenience. “Presence in the Security Council must not be instrumentalised to legitimise terrorists by attempting to de-list them or to list other entities as terrorist organisations based solely on political considerations,” she added.

India has consistently raised concerns about the opaque functioning of UNSC sanctions committees, particularly the 1267 Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee. New Delhi has in the past described the practice of placing technical holds or blocking evidence-based proposals without explanation as a “disguised veto.” India has argued that such actions undermine the Council’s credibility and its stated commitment to combating terrorism.

The latest remarks come amid India’s long-standing efforts to designate Pakistan-based terrorists, proposals that have faced hurdles, with China, a permanent member of the Council, repeatedly placing holds or blocking them. India has previously said that evidence-based proposals should not be blocked without adequate justification.

In addition to the listing issue, India expressed concern over the delay in finalising the chairs and vice-chairs of the Security Council’s subsidiary bodies, including the 1267 and 1988 sanctions committees. Ms. Patel noted that these bodies have not been able to function optimally due to the lack of leadership. Eight months into 2026, the Council has yet to finalise these positions.

“Subsidiary bodies serve important functions and enable better implementation of Security Council mandates. However, these bodies have not been able to deliver optimally in the recent past, primarily due to the delay in finalising the Chairs,” she said. India called for a “definitive and non-negotiable” timeline to resolve the issue on a priority basis.

Denmark, which holds the Security Council presidency for August, acknowledged the growing concern. In a stakeout at UN headquarters, the Danish mission said the “unprecedented delay” in appointing chairs of subsidiary bodies “undermines the Council’s effectiveness, credibility and institutional integrity.” Council members have been urged to show flexibility and political will to break the impasse.

India also used the debate to push for greater transparency and inclusivity in the Council’s working methods, especially for elected non-permanent members. Ms. Patel said elected members, and by extension the General Assembly, should have a greater say in key processes such as the election of the UN Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is appointed by the 193-member General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, where the five permanent members hold veto power.

“For instance, elected members, and by implication, the General Assembly, must have a greater say in crucial aspects such as election of the UN Secretary-General,” she said. This reflects India’s broader push for reform of the UNSC and for making the body more representative and accountable.

India’s remarks at the open debate underscore its consistent stance that the Security Council must uphold its primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security without being hijacked by narrow national interests. The call for transparency and objectivity in sanctions regimes is part of a wider effort to ensure that counter-terrorism measures are fair, credible, and effective.