New Delhi’s objection centres on the description of D-Company as an India-based criminal organisation, with Indian officials questioning the report’s factual accuracy and its treatment of Dawood Ibrahim’s alleged links to international terrorism.

India has strongly challenged a United Nations counter-terrorism report that describes underworld fugitive Dawood Ibrahim as the leader of the “India-based” D-Company criminal network, renewing its call for accuracy, impartiality and accountability in international reporting on terrorism.

Speaking at the United Nations, Indian diplomat Raghoo Puri criticised Special Rapporteur Ben Saul over what India considers significant factual omissions in the report. New Delhi maintains that Ibrahim is a wanted criminal in India and is believed to be residing in Pakistan.

The dispute has brought renewed attention to D-Company, the criminal syndicate associated with Ibrahim, its alleged links to international terrorist networks and the responsibilities of UN experts when documenting transnational security threats.

India’s principal objection concerns the description of D-Company as an India-based criminal organisation with terrorist connections. Indian officials argue that this wording, without adequate historical context, risks presenting an incomplete account of the network’s activities and its fugitive leader.

Addressing the UN, Puri expressed serious concern over reports containing what India describes as factual inaccuracies, arguing that such shortcomings undermine confidence in the work of independent international experts.

He also questioned the absence of sufficient accountability when special rapporteurs publish assessments that countries concerned consider inaccurate.

According to India, the report should have more clearly acknowledged that Dawood Ibrahim has been wanted in connection with terrorism-related offences in India since the 1993 Mumbai bombings.

New Delhi maintains that describing the organisation primarily through its Indian origins does not adequately convey the international dimensions of the allegations against its leadership.

Dawood Ibrahim has long been one of India’s most prominent fugitive suspects. Indian authorities have accused him of involvement in serious criminal and terrorist activities, including the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings, which killed more than 250 people.

India asserts that Ibrahim fled the country before the United Nations Security Council listing associated him with Al-Qaeda in 2003. Puri argued that the chronology and circumstances surrounding that listing were essential to understanding the case.

The Indian diplomat also referred to the UN sanctions listing, stating that its narrative summary records the grounds for the action against Ibrahim and the wider criminal network.

India maintains that Ibrahim resides in Pakistan, although his precise whereabouts have not been independently established publicly. Puri drew a comparison with Osama bin Laden, who was found and killed by US forces in Pakistan in 2011.

The reference was intended to reinforce India’s argument that the international dimension of terrorism networks and the locations from which their leaders allegedly operate must be accurately represented in official assessments.

The United Nations Security Council’s sanctions framework targeting Al-Qaeda and associated individuals and entities is an important element of international counter-terrorism cooperation.

Such measures are designed to help restrict the movement, financing and operational capabilities of listed individuals and organisations. The listing of Ibrahim in 2003 remains a central point in India’s argument that the report should have provided fuller context about his alleged links to international terrorist networks.

Puri said that focusing on the association with Al-Qaeda without adequately explaining Ibrahim’s earlier flight from India and his status as a wanted fugitive risks distorting the historical record.

India has therefore called for international reports on terrorism to distinguish clearly between an organisation’s origins, its subsequent activities and the locations where its leadership is believed to operate.

The disagreement also illustrates the importance of precise language in international security documents, where a brief description can influence how governments and the wider public understand a criminal network’s reach and operational history.

Beyond the specific reference to D-Company, India used the exchange to raise broader concerns about the standards applied by UN special rapporteurs.

New Delhi argued that reports addressing terrorism must be evidence-based, balanced and attentive to relevant facts. It also cautioned against the use of human rights principles in ways that, in India’s view, could obscure responsibility for terrorism or violent extremism.

The position reflects a wider debate over the role of independent UN experts, the quality of their research and the relationship between counter-terrorism policies and international human rights standards.

Special rapporteurs operate within the UN human rights system and produce reports intended to inform international scrutiny and discussion. Governments may challenge their findings, but disagreements over terminology and evidence can become diplomatically significant when they concern terrorism, national security or allegations involving other countries.

India’s criticism underscores its demand that assessments of transnational criminal organisations should account for the full context of the allegations, rather than rely on descriptions that officials consider incomplete.

The dispute places renewed focus on the accuracy of international counter-terrorism reporting and the role of UN mechanisms in documenting the activities of fugitive figures.

For India, the central issue is not simply whether D-Company is described as India-based, but whether the report adequately explains the network’s alleged terrorist connections, Ibrahim’s wanted status and the circumstances surrounding the UN sanctions listing.

The exchange also highlights the diplomatic sensitivity surrounding claims about Ibrahim’s alleged presence in Pakistan. India’s position is clear, but public confirmation of his current location remains a separate evidentiary question.

As international counter-terrorism cooperation continues to depend on information-sharing, sanctions enforcement and credible assessments, the disagreement serves as a reminder that accuracy and context are essential to maintaining confidence in multilateral institutions.

The key question is whether international assessments can present the history, alleged activities and transnational reach of organisations such as D-Company with sufficient precision to support effective counter-terrorism cooperation.