UNSC membership must not be used to 'legitimise' terrorists: India
India stated at a UN Security Council open debate on the Council's working methods that presence in the Security Council must not be used to shield or legitimise terrorists through opaque listing and delisting decisions.
India reiterated longstanding concerns over the functioning of the 1267 Al-Qaida/ISIL Sanctions Committee, describing certain practices within its consensus-based procedure as a "disguised veto."
The statement also flagged that key Security Council subsidiary bodies dealing with sanctions and counter-terrorism have gone without appointed chairs for an extended period due to unresolved disagreements among Council members.
India separately renewed its call for comprehensive UN Security Council reform and greater representation for the Global South, alongside its ongoing campaign for a non-permanent seat for the 2028-29 term.
UNSC 1267 Committee — Consensus Rule and the "Disguised Veto"
The Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), and 2253 (2015) — commonly called the 1267 Committee or the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee — maintains the UN's consolidated list of individuals and entities subject to an asset freeze, travel ban, and arms embargo for association with Al-Qaida or ISIL/Da'esh.
Key Details
- Unlike the Security Council itself, where only the five Permanent Members (P5 — US, UK, France, Russia, China) hold a formal veto under Article 27(3) of the UN Charter, decisions of the 1267 Committee (comprising all 15 Council members) are taken by consensus — meaning any single member, permanent or elected, can effectively block a listing or delisting by objection or by placing a "technical hold."
- A technical hold allows a member to request more information before a listing/delisting decision; the matter stays pending until the hold is lifted or converted into a formal objection — a mechanism critics, including India, call a "disguised" or informal veto exercised by any of the 15 members, not just the P5.
- An Ombudsperson mechanism (created via Resolution 1904, 2009) reviews delisting petitions; under the "reverse consensus" procedure, an Ombudsperson recommendation to delist takes effect unless the Committee decides by consensus within 60 days to keep the listing — though this too can be referred to the full Council if consensus is lacking.
- India has repeatedly cited a specific case where holds were placed on evidence-based India-US joint proposals to designate Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba leaders under the 1267 sanctions regime.
India's statement extends this long-standing critique — that the Committee's consensus/technical-hold procedure lets any of the 15 members block globally agreed, evidence-based terrorist designations without public justification, which India argues risks legitimising or shielding terrorists rather than sanctioning them.
UN Security Council Composition, Subsidiary Bodies, and India's Reform Push
The UN Security Council has 15 members — 5 permanent (P5, with veto power) and 10 non-permanent (elected for two-year terms by the UN General Assembly, not eligible for immediate re-election) — and operates numerous subsidiary bodies, including sanctions committees and the Counter-Terrorism Committee, chaired by elected members on a rotating basis.
Key Details
- India has served as a non-permanent UNSC member eight times, most recently for the 2021-22 term (elected with 184 of 192 votes), and held the Council presidency in August 2021; India is not currently an elected member and is campaigning for the 2028-29 non-permanent term under the "SHANTI" (Securing Holistic Advancement through Norms, Trust and Integrity) campaign.
- India is a founding member of the G4 (with Brazil, Germany, and Japan), which advocates expanding the Council from 15 to around 25-26 members, including new permanent seats, and has endorsed a G4 proposal for a 15-year deferral of veto rights for any new permanent members as a reform compromise.
- Chairs of Council subsidiary bodies (including sanctions committees) are allocated among elected members by consensus among the P5; prolonged disagreement over these appointments — including for the counter-terrorism-related sanctions committees — can leave such bodies without a chair for extended periods, weakening their functioning.
- India's reform push is pursued primarily through the UN's Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) framework on Security Council reform, distinct from its non-permanent seat candidature, though India frames the two as mutually reinforcing.
The absence of chairs for sanctions and counter-terrorism subsidiary bodies — cited alongside the 1267 Committee's consensus problem — forms part of India's broader argument that Council working methods and composition both need reform to make counter-terrorism action credible and depoliticised.
- 1267 Committee established: 1999 (Resolution 1267), reconstituted to cover ISIL/Da'esh via Resolutions 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015).
- Ombudsperson mechanism for delisting: created by Resolution 1904 (2009); "reverse consensus" delisting takes effect unless the Committee objects by consensus within 60 days.
- UNSC composition: 5 permanent (veto-holding) + 10 non-permanent (2-year term, no immediate re-election) members.
- India's most recent non-permanent term: 2021-22 (elected with 184/192 votes); India is campaigning for the 2028-29 term.
- G4 grouping: India, Brazil, Germany, Japan — proposes expanding UNSC to roughly 25-26 members.
- India has held the UNSC presidency multiple times, most recently in August 2021.