India — Sanctions & Embargoes

India does not operate a comprehensive autonomous sanctions regime comparable to OFAC or the EU's restrictive-measures framework. Instead, India's sanctions architecture rests primarily on implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions under the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (Act 43 of 1947, "UNSCA"), supplemented by limited domestic counter-terrorism measures and trade controls.

The United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 empowers the Central Government to give effect to any decision of the UN Security Council calling for measures not involving the use of armed force. Section 2 of the UNSCA authorizes the Central Government to make orders, published in the Official Gazette, to implement UNSC resolutions and to provide for punishment of persons contravening such orders. These orders (commonly referred to as "UNSCA Orders") transpose UNSC resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter into binding Indian domestic law. Section 2 further permits the Central Government to make any provisions necessary to carry out UNSC decisions and to prescribe penalties—by way of fine or imprisonment, or both—for violations. The statute does not prescribe a uniform penalty schedule; sanctions for breach are established in the individual orders issued under Section 2. India has issued UNSCA Orders implementing economic sanctions (asset freezes, arms embargoes, travel bans, commodity-specific prohibitions) against individuals, organizations, and countries designated by the Security Council, including sanctions related to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), ISIL (Da'esh) & Al-Qaida (under UNSC Resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), and successors), and other country-specific programs.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ("UAPA"), as amended, provides the statutory foundation for India's domestic counter-terrorism designations. The UAPA preamble (as amended in 2004 and 2008) expressly recites the Government's power under the UNSCA to implement UNSC counter-terrorism resolutions and states Parliament's intent to make special provisions to prevent and cope with terrorist activities. Section 35 of the UAPA empowers the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to declare an association unlawful if it is involved in terrorism or has as its object any unlawful activity; organizations so designated are listed in the First Schedule to the Act. Section 51A of the UAPA, inserted in 2008 to give effect to UNSC Resolutions 1267 (1999) and successor resolutions, prohibits any person from holding funds or financial assets, or making funds or financial assets available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any individual or entity listed in the Second, Third, or Fourth Schedules to the Act. The Second and Third Schedules incorporate UNSC-listed terrorist individuals and entities; the Fourth Schedule permits domestic designation of individuals. Violations of Section 51A are punishable under the general penalty provisions of the UAPA. The Act does not specify the enforcing ministry by name; operational practice assigns designation authority to the Ministry of Home Affairs (which maintains the Schedules through gazette notifications) and enforcement responsibility to financial regulators and law-enforcement agencies, but these allocations are not codified in the statute itself.

Trade-based sanctions and export controls rest on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 ("FTDR Act"). Section 3 of the FTDR Act empowers the Central Government to make provision for regulating or prohibiting imports and exports in the public interest or for the conservation of foreign exchange; this power is exercised through the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and public notices issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). Chapter 2 of the FTP sets forth country- and commodity-specific prohibitions and restrictions. In 2019, India amended the FTP to impose a blanket prohibition on both direct and indirect import or transit of goods originating in or exported from Pakistan—India's first autonomous trade sanction against a country beyond UNSC mandates. The FTDR Act does not, however, establish a secondary-sanctions regime; it governs only goods crossing India's borders and does not purport to penalize third-country transactions.

India does not impose secondary sanctions. Indian sanctions law does not penalize foreign parties for transactions with countries or persons subject to sanctions imposed by other jurisdictions (such as U.S. OFAC programs or EU autonomous measures). India has consistently stated it does not subscribe to unilateral sanctions imposed outside the UNSC framework. Consequently, Indian companies and financial institutions face sanctions exposure when their activities touch U.S. or EU jurisdictions, involve U.S.-dollar clearing, or otherwise trigger extraterritorial application of foreign sanctions law—but not under Indian domestic law itself.

The division of implementation and enforcement responsibilities among Indian government agencies—Ministry of External Affairs for UNSC sanctions coordination, Ministry of Home Affairs for UAPA designations, Reserve Bank of India for financial-sector compliance, Directorate General of Foreign Trade for import/export controls, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs for border enforcement—is established by executive practice and administrative circulars rather than by the enabling statutes themselves. The statutes empower the "Central Government" without specifying which ministry or department exercises the delegated authority.

Source: United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (Act 43 of 1947), Ministry of External Affairs Source: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967), Ministry of Home Affairs

Financial institutions operating in India—including banks, non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), payment-service providers, and other entities regulated by the Reserve Bank of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), or Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)—are subject to mandatory screening and asset-freeze obligations under Section 51A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Section 51A prohibits any person from holding funds or financial assets, or making funds or financial assets available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any individual or entity listed in the Second, Third, or Fourth Schedules to the UAPA. The Second and Third Schedules incorporate individuals and entities designated by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) under resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), and 2253 (2015) (ISIL/Al-Qaida) and resolution 1988 (2011) (Taliban); the Fourth Schedule permits domestic designation of individuals by the Central Government.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) "Procedure for Implementation of Section 51A of the UAPA" (issued May 4, 2023, file number 14014/01/2019/CFT, replacing earlier versions from 2020 and 2009) sets out the operational steps that financial institutions, their regulators, and law-enforcement agencies must follow to give effect to the statutory prohibition. The procedure is binding on all financial institutions, whether regulated by RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, or subject to Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) obligations as "reporting entities."

Screening obligation. Financial institutions must screen:

• All prospective customers at account opening or onboarding, before establishing the business relationship;
• All existing customers on an ongoing basis, including at each periodic Know-Your-Customer (KYC) refresh; and
• All customer databases whenever the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) or MHA circulates an update to the UNSC sanctions lists or the UAPA Schedules.

The screening compares customer names, aliases, dates of birth, nationalities, passport numbers, national identification numbers, and addresses against the identifying information published in the consolidated UNSC lists (ISIL/Al-Qaida Sanctions List and Taliban Sanctions List) and the UAPA Second, Third, and Fourth Schedules. The MHA procedure specifies that MEA forwards UNSC list updates electronically to the nodal officers at financial regulators (RBI, SEBI, IRDAI), the Financial Intelligence Unit – India (FIU-IND), the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and the Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Radicalization (CTCR) Division of MHA "without delay." Each financial regulator then transmits the updated list to its regulated entities without delay.

Freeze action. Upon identifying a match—whether a positive name-match or a match on other identifying criteria that, in the institution's assessment, indicates the customer is the same person as a listed individual or entity—the financial institution must immediately freeze the account or funds. The freeze is mandatory and does not require prior notice to the customer, prior approval from the regulator, or a court order. The freeze covers:

• All accounts held in the name of the listed individual or entity;
• All accounts held for the benefit of the listed individual or entity, including accounts nominally held by a third party but over which the listed person exercises control or derives economic benefit; and
• All funds, financial assets, economic resources, and financial services otherwise available to the listed person.

The MHA procedure does not prescribe a "reasonable grounds to suspect" or "on a risk-sensitive basis" standard; it directs financial institutions to freeze upon identifying a match with a listed person.

Reporting. Within 24 hours of effecting the freeze, the financial institution must report the action to:

1. Its principal officer (the officer designated under PMLA for anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing compliance);
2. The Financial Intelligence Unit – India (FIU-IND), the national financial-intelligence agency under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance; and
3. The Joint Secretary (CTCR), Ministry of Home Affairs, the nodal officer for UAPA implementation.

The report must include the name and identifying details of the listed person, the account numbers and balances frozen, the date of the freeze, and any other information relevant to the match. The MHA procedure specifies that financial regulators (RBI, SEBI, IRDAI) also receive copies of freeze reports from FIU-IND and the CTCR Division.

Duration of freeze. The freeze remains in effect until the individual or entity is de-listed. De-listing occurs when:

• The relevant UNSC sanctions committee (the 1267/1989/2253 Committee for ISIL/Al-Qaida designations, or the 1988 Committee for Taliban designations) removes the person from the consolidated list and publishes a press release to that effect; or
• The Central Government, acting through MHA, issues a gazette notification removing the person from the relevant UAPA Schedule.

Financial institutions do not have authority to unfreeze accounts unilaterally, even if the customer provides documentation that they are not the listed person or that the match was erroneous. The MHA procedure states: "Any request for de-listing received by any bank is to be forwarded electronically to Joint Secretary (CTCR), MHA for consideration." MHA, in consultation with MEA (for UNSC-listed persons) or based on its own assessment (for Fourth Schedule domestic designations), decides whether to seek de-listing from the UNSC Committee or to issue a domestic de-listing notification.

Updated lists and press releases. The consolidated UNSC sanctions lists are published at:

• ISIL/Al-Qaida list: www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list
• Taliban list: www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1988/materials
• UNSC press releases (additions, modifications, removals): www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267/press-releases

The UAPA Schedules are published by MHA in the Official Gazette; amendments to the Schedules are also gazetted. Financial institutions rely on notifications from their regulators (which forward MEA/MHA updates) rather than monitoring the UN or gazette websites directly, but the MHA procedure encourages institutions to "ensure meticulous compliance" by cross-checking official sources.

Penalties. Section 51A does not itself prescribe a penalty. Violations—holding funds for a listed person, failing to freeze upon detection, or unfreezing without authorization—are prosecuted under the general penalty provisions of the UAPA. The UAPA authorizes fines and imprisonment for contravention of its provisions, but the statute does not set a uniform penalty schedule; the quantum is determined by the trial court based on the nature and gravity of the offense. Additionally, financial regulators may impose administrative sanctions (monetary penalties, license suspension or revocation, removal of key management personnel) under their respective statutes (Banking Regulation Act, 1949; SEBI Act, 1992; Insurance Act, 1938) for failure to comply with regulatory directives implementing Section 51A. The exact penalty exposure for a sanctions-screening failure depends on whether the case is pursued criminally (by MHA or law enforcement) or administratively (by the financial regulator) and on the factual circumstances.

Cross-jurisdictional note. India's Section 51A framework applies only to persons designated by the UNSC or by the Indian government under the UAPA. India does not recognize or enforce unilateral sanctions imposed by other countries (such as U.S. OFAC sectoral or secondary sanctions, or EU autonomous restrictive measures) as a matter of Indian law. However, Indian financial institutions with U.S.-dollar correspondent-banking relationships, U.S. branches or subsidiaries, or EU operations face separate compliance obligations under foreign sanctions regimes and typically implement layered screening (UNSC/UAPA lists plus OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK OFSI list) to manage extraterritorial exposure. The MHA procedure addresses only the UNSC/UAPA obligations; foreign-sanctions compliance is governed by the foreign jurisdictions' laws and is not mandated by Indian statute or the MHA procedure.

Source: Procedure for Implementation of Section 51A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Ministry of Home Affairs (May 4, 2023) Source: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967), Ministry of Home Affairs

Section 51A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) prohibits any person from holding funds or financial assets, or making funds or financial assets available, for the benefit of individuals or entities listed in the Second, Third, or Fourth Schedules to the UAPA (United Nations Security Council–designated terrorists under resolutions 1267/1989/2253 and 1988, and domestic terror designees). Violations—holding funds for a listed person, failing to freeze an account upon detecting a match during customer screening, or unfreezing an account without authorization from the Ministry of Home Affairs—expose the financial institution and its officers to criminal prosecution under the UAPA and administrative sanctions by financial regulators (Reserve Bank of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India).

## Criminal penalties under the UAPA

The UAPA does not prescribe a specific penalty for contravention of Section 51A. The Act empowers the Central Government to freeze, seize, or attach funds held for listed individuals or entities and to prohibit making funds available for their benefit, but it does not couple this power with a standalone penalty clause. Instead, violations of Section 51A are prosecuted under the general penalty provisions of the UAPA.

Section 13 of the UAPA makes it an offense to be a member of a terrorist organization listed in the First Schedule or to invite support for such an organization; conviction carries imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and is also liable to fine. Section 17 criminalizes raising funds for a terrorist act; conviction carries imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment and is also liable to fine. Section 18 criminalizes conspiracy to commit a terrorist act; conviction carries the same punishment as if the person had committed the terrorist act itself. A financial institution that knowingly holds or releases funds for a listed terrorist individual or entity, or that fails to freeze an account with the intent to aid a listed person, may be prosecuted under one or more of these provisions, depending on the facts and the degree of knowledge or intent established.

Section 23 imposes enhanced penalties where a person contravenes the Explosives Act, the Arms Act, or related statutes "with intent to aid any terrorist or terrorist organisation." In such cases, the court shall impose imprisonment for a term not less than five years but which may extend to life imprisonment, and the person is also liable to fine. Where a Section 51A violation is accompanied by proof of intent to aid a listed terrorist, the prosecution may invoke Section 23 to secure the enhanced minimum sentence. The statute does not define "intent to aid" by reference to a monetary threshold or a specific act; the trial court determines intent based on the evidence.

For negligent or inadvertent violations—such as a failure to update screening databases promptly after the Ministry of External Affairs circulates a revised UNSC sanctions list, or an erroneous unfreezing due to a name-matching error—the prosecution may proceed under the general unlawful-activity or conspiracy provisions without invoking the enhanced-penalty framework. The UAPA does not establish a uniform fine schedule, a civil-monetary-penalty regime, or a strict-liability offense for Section 51A compliance failures. All prosecutions under the UAPA require proof of knowledge, intent, or participation in unlawful activity; negligence alone may not suffice for conviction absent statutory specification.

Jurisdiction and procedure. Offenses under the UAPA are investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), state police counter-terrorism units, or, in cases involving proceeds of terrorism, the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Prosecution is conducted before Special Courts designated under Section 11 or Section 21 of the UAPA. Section 45 of the UAPA provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offense punishable under Chapters IV or VI of the Act (which include the terrorism-related offenses) except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government, or of such officer as the Central Government or State Government may authorize. This sanction requirement insulates financial institutions from private prosecution but exposes them to the enforcement discretion of the Ministry of Home Affairs (which administers the UAPA) and the prosecuting agencies.

## Administrative sanctions by financial regulators

The Ministry of Home Affairs "Procedure for Implementation of Section 51A of the UAPA" (revised May 4, 2023) sets out the operational steps that financial institutions, financial regulators (RBI, SEBI, IRDAI), and law-enforcement agencies must follow to give effect to the statutory prohibition. The procedure specifies that financial institutions must screen all prospective and existing customers against the UNSC sanctions lists and the UAPA Schedules, freeze accounts immediately upon identifying a match, and report the freeze within 24 hours to their principal officer (the officer designated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for AML/CFT compliance), the Financial Intelligence Unit – India (FIU-IND), and the Joint Secretary (Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Radicalization Division) of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The procedure does not itself prescribe penalties for non-compliance; it directs financial regulators to "ensure meticulous compliance" by their regulated entities and contemplates that violations will be addressed through the regulators' respective enforcement powers under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the SEBI Act, 1992, and the Insurance Act, 1938.

RBI enforcement (banks and non-banking financial companies). The RBI has incorporated the MHA procedure into its Master Direction on Know Your Customer (KYC) and its Master Direction on Prevention of Money Laundering (PML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT). Banks, NBFCs, payment system operators, and other RBI-regulated entities are required to implement the Section 51A screening and freezing obligations as part of their KYC and AML/CFT compliance programs. Violations are subject to penalties under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, but the RBI Master Directions themselves do not quantify the penalty amounts or specify the enforcement procedure for Section 51A compliance failures distinct from general KYC lapses. The MHA procedure states that financial regulators receive copies of freeze reports from FIU-IND and the CTCR Division and may take "appropriate action" under their respective statutes, but it does not elaborate on what constitutes appropriate action or set a penalty schedule.

Unable to confirm the specific monetary penalty limits or administrative sanctions that the RBI, SEBI, or IRDAI may impose for a Section 51A screening or freezing failure, as distinct from other KYC or AML/CFT violations, as of 2026-06-01. The regulators' public enforcement-action press releases and orders typically cite non-compliance with "KYC norms" or "AML/CFT guidelines" without specifying whether the underlying failure involved Section 51A UNSC/UAPA screening or other customer-due-diligence deficiencies.

## Coordination between criminal and administrative enforcement

A single Section 51A compliance failure—for example, failing to freeze the account of a person newly added to the UNSC ISIL/Al-Qaida Sanctions List—can trigger both criminal investigation (by the NIA, state police, or the Enforcement Directorate under the UAPA or PMLA) and administrative enforcement (by the financial institution's principal regulator). The MHA procedure contemplates that the Joint Secretary (CTCR) of the Ministry of Home Affairs, upon receiving a freeze report or a complaint, may refer the matter to law-enforcement agencies for investigation or may close it as a compliance lapse if the institution promptly corrected the error and reported it voluntarily. The procedure does not set threshold criteria (such as the amount frozen, the duration of non-compliance, or the number of listed persons affected) that trigger mandatory criminal referral versus administrative resolution.

In practice, the division of labor appears to be: administrative penalties for negligent screening or database-update delays; criminal investigation for knowing or intentional releases of funds to listed terrorists, or for failures coupled with other indicators of terrorist financing (such as structuring transactions, false reporting, or collusion with the listed person). However, the statute and the MHA procedure do not codify this division, and both enforcement tracks remain available for any Section 51A violation.

## Cross-border sanctions-compliance exposure

Indian financial institutions with U.S.-dollar correspondent-banking relationships, U.S. branches or subsidiaries, or operations in European Union or United Kingdom jurisdictions face separate sanctions-compliance obligations under foreign law. The U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) enforces U.S. sanctions programs extraterritorially against non-U.S. financial institutions that process U.S.-dollar transactions, use U.S. financial infrastructure, or have a U.S. nexus; violations can result in civil monetary penalties, loss of correspondent-banking access, and criminal prosecution under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). EU member-state competent authorities and the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) enforce EU and UK autonomous sanctions and impose penalties under their respective domestic regulations.

Indian law does not recognize or enforce unilateral foreign sanctions as a matter of domestic Indian law. India has consistently stated it does not subscribe to sanctions imposed outside the United Nations Security Council framework. Consequently, an Indian financial institution that processes a transaction for a party designated under U.S. OFAC sectoral sanctions (such as certain Russian or Iranian entities) or EU autonomous restrictive measures (such as Belarus sanctions) does not violate Indian law unless that party is also listed under a UNSC resolution or the UAPA Schedules. However, the institution faces foreign enforcement exposure and, in practice, many Indian banks implement layered screening (UNSC/UAPA lists plus OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK OFSI list) to manage the risk of losing U.S.-dollar correspondent access or EU/UK market access. Failure to comply with foreign sanctions law exposes the institution to foreign penalties, de-risking by correspondent banks, and reputational damage; it does not constitute a violation of the UAPA or Indian sanctions law.

Source: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967), Ministry of Home Affairs Source: Procedure for Implementation of Section 51A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Ministry of Home Affairs (May 4, 2023)

India implements United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions through the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which transpose UNSC resolutions—including asset-freeze obligations against individuals and entities designated under resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), 2253 (2015) (ISIL/Al-Qaida), and 1988 (2011) (Taliban)—into binding Indian domestic law. Once a financial institution in India freezes an account under Section 51A of the UAPA because the account holder matches a listed person in the UAPA Second, Third, or Fourth Schedules, the freeze remains in effect until the individual or entity is de-listed by the relevant UNSC sanctions committee or by the Indian government through a gazette notification. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) "Procedure for Implementation of Section 51A of the UAPA" (revised May 4, 2023, file number 14014/01/2019/CFT) does not authorize financial institutions to unfreeze accounts unilaterally, even if the customer claims the match was erroneous or if the frozen funds are needed for basic living expenses, medical care, or legal fees.

The MHA procedure states: "The freeze shall remain in force till the delisting of such an individual or entity" and "Any request for de-listing received by any bank is to be forwarded electronically to Joint Secretary (CTCR), MHA for consideration." The procedure does not distinguish between (i) de-listing requests (permanent removal from the sanctions list) and (ii) exemption or unfreezing requests (one-time authorization to access frozen funds for a permitted humanitarian purpose while the person remains listed). It does not specify the process, timeline, or documentation required for a financial institution or a listed individual to obtain permission to release frozen funds for basic expenses (food, rent, medicine, legal fees) or humanitarian purposes, nor does it designate the competent authority (MHA, Ministry of External Affairs, or another ministry) to review such requests or to submit notifications or requests to the UNSC sanctions committees on India's behalf.

## UNSC humanitarian-exemption framework and India's abstention on Resolution 2664 (2022)

The UNSC resolutions themselves establish humanitarian-exemption mechanisms. UNSC Resolution 1452 (2002), as amended by Resolution 1735 (2006), provides that the asset-freeze measures imposed under the 1267/1989/2253 (ISIL/Al-Qaida) and 1988 (Taliban) sanctions regimes do not apply to funds or economic resources that a member state has determined are necessary for basic expenses (foodstuffs, rent, medicines, medical treatment, taxes, insurance, utility charges, reasonable legal fees, or account-maintenance fees), after notification by the member state to the relevant Committee and in the absence of a negative decision by the Committee within five working days. The resolution also permits member states to authorize access to frozen funds for extraordinary expenses, subject to Committee approval on a case-by-case basis. On December 9, 2022, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2664 (2022), which establishes a cross-cutting standing humanitarian exemption applicable to all UNSC sanctions regimes: the provision, processing, or payment of funds or the provision of goods and services necessary to ensure the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance or to support other activities that support basic human needs are permitted and are not a violation of the asset freezes imposed by the Security Council. For the ISIL/Al-Qaida regime, the exemption initially applied for two years and was affirmed to continue by Resolution 2761 (2024) on December 6, 2024.

India abstained from the vote on Resolution 2664 (2022). In her Explanation of Vote on December 9, 2022, India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj, stated that India's concerns "emanate from proven instances of terrorist groups taking full advantage of such humanitarian carve-outs, and making a mockery of sanction regimes" and that "there have also been several cases of terrorist groups in our neighbourhood, including those listed by this Council, re-incarnating themselves as humanitarian organizations and civil society groups precisely to evade these sanctions." India emphasized that "due diligence and extreme caution in the implementation of the resolution … is an absolute must" and that the carve-out "must not lead to mainstreaming of terrorist organisations." India's abstention does not relieve India of the obligation to give effect to the resolution (UNSC resolutions adopted under Chapter VII are binding on all member states under Article 25 of the UN Charter), but it signals India's policy concern about abuse by listed terrorist entities.

## Absence of a published Indian domestic implementing procedure

Unable to confirm the existence of a published Government of India procedure, regulation, circular, or order that sets out the steps for a financial institution, a listed individual, or a humanitarian organization to request basic-expenses or humanitarian exemptions under UNSC Resolutions 1452 or 2664, designates the responsible ministry (MHA, MEA, or another agency), specifies the documentation or evidentiary requirements, or establishes a review timeline, as of 2026-06-01.

The MHA Procedure for Implementation of Section 51A (May 2023) does not include any section on humanitarian exemptions, basic-expenses unfreezing, or the procedure to apply to the Government of India for authorization to release frozen funds. The procedure addresses only the freeze obligation and states that any request for de-listing is to be forwarded to the Joint Secretary (Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Radicalization Division), MHA. It does not specify whether that office also handles exemption requests under Resolution 1452 or 2664, or whether another ministry (such as the Ministry of External Affairs, which coordinates with the UNSC sanctions committees) is the competent authority for such requests.

The United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (Act 43 of 1947) empowers the Central Government to make orders to implement UNSC resolutions and to prescribe penalties for violations, but it does not itself set out a procedure for humanitarian exemptions or unfreezing. The Act authorizes the Central Government to "make such provision as appears to it necessary or expedient for enabling those measures to be effectively applied," but publicly available UNSCA Orders implementing the 1267/1989/2253 and 1988 sanctions resolutions do not include a humanitarian-exemption application procedure or designate a nodal ministry to receive and process such requests.

## Practical consequence for Indian financial institutions and listed individuals

An Indian financial institution that has frozen an account under Section 51A of the UAPA and that receives a request from the account holder to release funds for basic living expenses (food, rent, medicine, legal fees) or for humanitarian purposes faces the following situation:

1. The UNSC resolutions permit such releases under the conditions in Resolution 1452 (notification to the Committee + five-day no-objection period for basic expenses; Committee approval for extraordinary expenses) and Resolution 2664 (standing exemption for humanitarian assistance and activities supporting basic human needs, without prior notification).

1. Indian domestic law and the MHA procedure do not specify how to obtain that permission from the Government of India, which ministry reviews the request, what documentation is required, or what timeline applies.

1. The financial institution may not unfreeze the account on its own authority. The MHA procedure states that the freeze remains in force until de-listing and that any request for de-listing (the procedure does not mention exemption requests separately) is to be forwarded to the Joint Secretary (CTCR), MHA.

In the absence of published guidance, a listed individual or their family members seeking access to frozen funds for basic living expenses, medical treatment, or legal representation must petition the Joint Secretary (Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Radicalization Division), Ministry of Home Affairs (the nodal officer identified in the MHA procedure for Section 51A implementation), and may also need to coordinate with the Ministry of External Affairs (which represents India at the UNSC sanctions committees and circulates UNSC sanctions-list updates to other ministries). The petition should cite the relevant UNSC resolution (1452 for basic/extraordinary expenses or 2664 for humanitarian assistance), specify the category of expense, provide supporting documentation (medical bills, lease agreements, legal-fee invoices, humanitarian-project details), and explain why the release is consistent with the resolution's safeguards (no diversion to terrorist activity). The Government of India would then decide—through internal coordination among MHA, MEA, and possibly the financial regulators (RBI, SEBI, IRDAI)—whether to submit a notification to the UNSC Committee (for Resolution 1452 basic expenses), a request for Committee approval (for Resolution 1452 extraordinary expenses), or to authorize the release domestically under the standing humanitarian exemption in Resolution 2664. The Government of India retains discretion; there is no statutory entitlement to an exemption, and India's stated policy concern (voiced in its abstention on Resolution 2664) is to prevent abuse of humanitarian carve-outs by listed terrorist groups.

Financial institutions that receive a request to release funds for basic or humanitarian expenses should forward the request to their principal officer (the officer designated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for AML/CFT compliance), the Financial Intelligence Unit – India (FIU-IND), and the Joint Secretary (CTCR), MHA, in the same manner as the initial freeze report under the MHA procedure. They should not release the funds unilaterally pending a decision from the Government of India. If the Government of India authorizes the release (whether after obtaining UNSC Committee approval or on the basis of the standing exemption in Resolution 2664), it is expected to notify the financial institution and the relevant financial regulator (RBI, SEBI, or IRDAI) through an administrative communication; however, the form and channel of such notification are not specified in the MHA procedure or any other publicly available regulation.

Cross-border note. India's implementation of UNSC sanctions, including any humanitarian exemptions, applies only to persons and transactions subject to Indian jurisdiction. India does not recognize or enforce unilateral sanctions imposed by other countries (such as U.S. OFAC programs or EU autonomous restrictive measures), and India has no domestic procedure for exemptions from those foreign sanctions. Indian entities subject to both Indian UNSC-based sanctions and foreign unilateral sanctions (for example, an Indian bank with U.S.-dollar correspondent-banking relationships or a European subsidiary) must manage foreign-sanctions compliance obligations under the foreign jurisdictions' laws; exemptions or licenses granted by the U.S. Treasury (OFAC), EU member-state competent authorities, or the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) do not bind India and do not authorize an Indian financial institution to release funds frozen under Section 51A of the UAPA. Conversely, any exemption that the Government of India might grant under UNSC resolutions does not satisfy foreign-sanctions requirements; the entity must obtain separate authorization from the foreign sanctions authority.

Source: Procedure for Implementation of Section 51A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Ministry of Home Affairs (May 4, 2023) Source: United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (Act 43 of 1947), Ministry of External Affairs

India regulates exports of dual-use items, munitions, and nuclear-related materials, equipment, software, and technology through the SCOMET (Special Chemicals, Organisms, Materials, Equipment and Technologies) framework. The Foreign Trade Policy 2023, Chapter 10, states that India has regulated the exports of dual-use items, nuclear-related items (including software and technology), and munitions "in consonance with the guidelines and control lists of … international conventions and obligations as well as multilateral export control regimes," specifically the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), and Australia Group (AG). The FTP 2023 notes that India is a member of the MTCR, WA, and AG, and has harmonized its guidelines and control lists with those of the NSG. The SCOMET list is described as India's "National Export Control List of dual use items munitions and nuclear related items, including software and technology" aligned to the control lists of the multilateral export-control regimes and conventions. The regime implements India's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), which the FTP 2023 summarizes as obliging all countries to prohibit access by non-state actors (in particular for terrorist purposes) to weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials, equipment, and technology.

Legal foundation and structure. The SCOMET list is notified under Appendix 3 to Schedule 2 of the ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items, issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. DGFT Notification No. 5/2015-2020 dated April 24, 2017, replaced the existing Appendix 3 and superseded earlier SCOMET notifications from 2011–2014. The SCOMET List is updated periodically by DGFT; the version current as of 2026 is the September 2, 2024, update. Appendix 3 divides controlled items into nine categories:

• Category 0: Nuclear materials, nuclear-related other materials, equipment, and technology;
• Category 1: Materials, chemicals, micro-organisms, and toxins;
• Category 2: Materials processing;
• Category 3: Electronics;
• Category 4: Computers;
• Category 5: Telecommunications and information security;
• Category 6: Sensors and lasers;
• Category 7: Navigation and avionics;
• Category 8: Marine, aerospace, and propulsion.

A Munitions List is appended to Category 8, covering conventional arms and military explosives.

Licensing requirement and authority. FTP 2023, Chapter 10, states that "export of SCOMET items … require[s] an Authorization unless specifically exempted." The export of any item, software, or technology listed in Appendix 3—including export from India to a foreign country, from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) or Export Oriented Unit (EOU), or from an SEZ to another country—requires an export authorization (license). The licensing authority is the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) for Categories 1 through 8 and the Munitions List. For Category 0 (nuclear materials and nuclear-related items), the licensing authority is the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), and the applicable guidelines are notified by DAE under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. FTP 2023, Chapter 10, states that for certain items in Category 0, "formal assurances from the recipient State will include non-use in any nuclear explosive device" and that "Authorisations for export of certain items in Category 0 will not be granted unless transfer is additionally under adequate physical protection and is covered by appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, or any other mutually agreed controls." The FTP does not detail the specific procedure or criteria for DAE licensing of Category 0 items; DAE procedures are governed by separate regulations under the Atomic Energy Act.

Export licensing procedure (Categories 1–8 and Munitions List, licensed by DGFT). An exporter of SCOMET items applies to DGFT Headquarters, New Delhi. FTP 2023, Chapter 10, specifies that applications for export of SCOMET items (Categories 1–5 and 8) are evaluated by the Inter-Ministerial Working Group (IMWG) in DGFT Headquarters, and that the IMWG evaluates the application "based on … guidelines/general criteria as specified in Appendix-10A" (of the Handbook of Procedures 2023). The procedure and required documents are set out in Chapter 10 of the Handbook of Procedures 2023 (HBP), which is published by DGFT to implement the Foreign Trade Policy. The HBP specifies that the exporter must submit:

1. End-use certificate (EUC) in the prescribed proforma. The HBP provides three EUC proformas: Appendix 10J(i) for Categories 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 and for re-export from stockist to ultimate end-user under stock-and-sale authorizations; Appendix 10J(ii) for Category 1 items; and Appendix 10J(iii) for stock-and-sale authorizations. The HBP Chapter 10 states that the EUCs "are to be filled by all the entities involved in the chain of supply e.g. foreign buyer/consignee / end-user/intermediary(ies) on the letterhead of the respective entity, duly signed in ink and stamped by the authorized signatory of the company." The EUC certifies the end-use of the items (civil or military, and specific project or application), the specific location where the items will be used, and that the items will not be re-exported, transshipped, or sold without the consent of the Government of India, will not be used in weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, and will not be transferred to any entity under export-control restrictions. The HBP requires that the end-user permit post-shipment verification at the end-user's site if required by the Government of India.

1. Purchase order or contract from the foreign buyer/consignee/end-user, specifying the item, quantity, and value.

1. Technical specification or catalogue of the SCOMET item. For software or technology exports, the HBP requires "an explanation of the process, product, specification (catalogue), size and output capacity of all items to be produced with the technology."

1. Credentials and details of the foreign parties—the HBP states that the IMWG evaluates applications based on "Credentials and details of the parties involved" and India's national security and relations with the destination country.

For items in Categories 0, 3 (other than 3D), 4, 5, and 7 destined for Iran, FTP 2023, Chapter 10, states that "Authorization for export of items in Categories 0, 3 (other than 3D), 4, 5 and 7 of the SCOMET list to Iran would be subject to the relevant provisions contained in Annex B to the UN Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)." The FTP further states that the licensing authority (DGFT or DAE) "shall seek the concurrence of Disarmament and International Security Affairs Division, Ministry of External Affairs" before granting the authorization.

Technology exports and deemed exports. The SCOMET list includes controls on "Technology" exports. Appendix 3 defines "Technology" as "information (including information embodied in software) other than information in the public domain, that is capable of being used in" the design, development, production, or use of goods, or the development or provision of an industrial or commercial activity or service. Technology is controlled if it is "required" for the development, production, or use of a SCOMET-listed item. Appendix 3 states: "Exporters are advised to refer to the relevant guidelines relating to the export of SCOMET items in the Handbook of Procedures." The HBP Chapter 10 specifies that entities operating in India and involved in the manufacture, processing, or use of SCOMET items must obtain permission from DGFT Headquarters before entering into any arrangement or understanding that involves an obligation to facilitate "site visits, on-site verification or access to records/ documentation, by foreign Governments or foreign third parties, either acting directly or through an Indian party." Applications are submitted in ANF 10E and are considered by the IMWG.

Catch-all controls. Appendix 3 to the SCOMET list states: "If an exporter is aware that goods which he proposes to export are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part, for use in connection with (i) the design, development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; or (ii) the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance or storage of missiles capable of delivering such weapons, he shall apply to DGFT for authorization. The export of such an item may be denied or permitted as per the procedure provided for SCOMET items." The HBP Chapter 10 notes that "'Military use' shall mean incorporation into items listed under SCOMET Categories" or for end-uses related to weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems.

General authorizations and exemptions. Certain categories of SCOMET exports are permitted under general authorizations without individual license applications:

• General Authorization for Export after Repair in India (GAER): HBP Chapter 10 states that "Export of imported SCOMET items to the same entity abroad after repair in India will be allowed on the basis of a onetime General authorisation for Export after Repair in India (GAER) subject to post reporting on quarterly basis issued by DGFT." The exporter must submit documents including the original import invoice, the repair invoice, and confirmation that the item is being returned to the same entity.

• Stock and Sale: For certain SCOMET items (other than Category 1 chemicals), exporters may apply for a stock-and-sale authorization that permits re-export from an Indian stockist to the ultimate end-user without a separate license for each transaction, subject to prescribed conditions and reporting.

• Public-domain software and technology: Appendix 3 states that "unless otherwise provided for against any item on the SCOMET List, the List does not control software which is either in the public domain or is generally available to the public" by being sold from stock at retail selling points without restriction, or "designed for installation by the user without further substantial support by the supplier."

Reporting. HBP Chapter 10 requires that all supplies of SCOMET items from the Domestic Tariff Area to SEZ/EOU be reported to the Development Commissioner of the respective SEZ/EOU "within one week of the supplies getting effected," using the proforma in Annexure 1 to Appendix 3 to Schedule 2 of ITC(HS). The Development Commissioner submits an annual consolidated report of such supplies to DGFT Headquarters "by 15th May of every financial year." The HBP also requires exporters holding SCOMET authorizations to submit quarterly reports of exports to DGFT and specifies that "failure to do so may entail imposition of penalty and/or cancellation" of the authorization.

Penalties. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, authorizes the Central Government to prohibit, restrict, or regulate imports and exports. FTP 2023, Chapter 2, states that if an authorization holder violates any condition of the authorization or fails to fulfill export obligations, "he shall be liable for action in accordance with FT (D&R) Act, the Rules and Orders made there under." The DGFT may place violators in the Denied Entity List (DEL), which bars the entity from obtaining any export or import authorization. The Customs Act, 1962, Section 11, empowers the government to prohibit or restrict imports and exports, and Section 111 and related provisions allow confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties if restricted items are exported without a proper license. The FTP and HBP do not specify a penalty schedule for SCOMET violations; penalties are determined case-by-case under the FT(D&R) Act and the Customs Act. If a SCOMET export violation involves export to entities engaged in terrorism-related activities, the exporter may also face prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which criminalizes raising funds for or aiding terrorist organizations, though the SCOMET framework itself does not reference the UAPA.

Cross-jurisdictional note. India's SCOMET controls apply to exports from India. Indian companies with global operations must separately manage compliance with export-control laws of other jurisdictions (such as the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or EU Dual-Use Regulation 2021/821) for exports from their foreign subsidiaries or for items subject to foreign-origin controls; the SCOMET framework does not address foreign export-control regimes.

Source: Appendix 3 to Schedule 2 of ITC(HS) Classification of Export and Import Items (SCOMET List, updated September 2, 2024), Directorate General of Foreign Trade Source: Foreign Trade Policy 2023, Chapter 10: SCOMET, Directorate General of Foreign Trade

An individual or entity that has been designated as a terrorist under Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and listed in the Fourth Schedule (domestic designation by the Indian government) or that has been incorporated into the Second or Third Schedules (individuals and entities designated by the United Nations Security Council under resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), 2253 (2015) for ISIL/Al-Qaida, and resolution 1988 (2011) for Taliban) may seek de-listing — permanent removal from the sanctions list, lifting of the asset freeze imposed under Section 51A of the UAPA, and restoration of access to the financial system. The de-listing procedure differs depending on whether the person was designated domestically under the UAPA or by the UNSC.

## De-listing from the UAPA Fourth Schedule (Indian domestic designations)

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) "Procedure for designation and delisting of terrorist individual/organisation on the basis of UNSCR 1267 and UNSCR 1373 and delisting thereof" (file number 14012/06/2022/CFT-82, dated September 12, 2023) states that "The request for delisting of individual/ organisation, designated under the UAPA and the UNSCR 1373 (2001), are dealt with as per Section 36 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and 'the Procedure for Admission and Disposal of Application Rule, 2004', as amended from time to time."

Section 36 of the UAPA permits any person aggrieved by a designation under Section 35 to make an application to the Central Government for revocation or modification of the designation. Section 37 of the UAPA requires the Central Government to constitute one or more Review Committees to hear such applications. Each Review Committee consists of a Chairperson (who must be a person who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the Central Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice if the appointee is a sitting judge) and up to three other members possessing qualifications prescribed by the Central Government.

The Procedure for Admission and Disposal of Application Rule, 2004 (the statutory instrument implementing Section 36) sets out the procedural steps for filing and adjudicating de-listing applications. The applicant must submit a written application to the Joint Secretary (Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Radicalization Division), Ministry of Home Affairs, the nodal officer for UAPA administration and counter-terrorist-financing compliance. The application must set forth the grounds for de-listing, provide evidence that the applicant does not meet the criteria for designation under Section 35 of the UAPA (which requires that the Central Government believe, on reasonable grounds, that the individual or entity is involved in terrorism), and explain any change in circumstances since the original designation (such as cessation of terrorist activity, renunciation of affiliation with a terrorist organization, or mistaken identity).

Timeline. The UAPA does not prescribe a statutory deadline for the Review Committee to decide an application or for the Central Government to issue a final de-listing order. In practice, the timeline depends on the complexity of the case, the availability of intelligence and law-enforcement assessments from the Intelligence Bureau, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and other security agencies, and the frequency of Review Committee sittings. The MHA procedure does not publish a service standard or commit to a review period (such as 90 days or 180 days).

Standard of review. The Review Committee assesses whether the applicant continues to meet the designation criteria under Section 35 — namely, whether the Central Government continues to believe, on reasonable grounds, that the individual or organization is involved in terrorism. Section 35(3) of the UAPA specifies that an organization is deemed to be involved in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism (including by inciting others to commit terrorist acts), or is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Review Committee may consider intelligence assessments, law-enforcement reports, judicial findings (such as acquittals in criminal proceedings, or the absence of prosecution after a prolonged period), and the applicant's own evidence of changed circumstances. The Review Committee's recommendation is advisory; the final decision rests with the Central Government (acting through the Ministry of Home Affairs).

Outcome. If the Review Committee recommends de-listing and the Central Government accepts the recommendation, the MHA issues a gazette notification removing the individual or entity from the Fourth Schedule. The notification is published in the Official Gazette of India and circulated to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), financial regulators (Reserve Bank of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India), the Financial Intelligence Unit – India (FIU-IND), the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), and the UAPA nodal officers in each state and union territory. Upon publication of the de-listing notification, the asset freeze imposed under Section 51A ceases to apply, and financial institutions must unfreeze the person's accounts and restore normal banking services. If the Review Committee recommends against de-listing, or if the Central Government rejects a favorable recommendation, the applicant has no statutory right of appeal to a court under the UAPA itself. The applicant may, however, file a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the designation or the refusal to de-list on grounds of constitutional invalidity, procedural unfairness, or absence of evidence. Indian courts have recognized that UAPA designations are subject to judicial review for compliance with principles of natural justice and proportionality, but the threshold for overturning an executive designation on national-security grounds is high.

## De-listing from the UNSC 1267/1989/2253 (ISIL/Al-Qaida) and 1988 (Taliban) sanctions lists

The Second and Third Schedules to the UAPA incorporate by reference the individuals and entities designated by the UNSC Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), and 2253 (2015) (the ISIL/Al-Qaida sanctions regime) and the UNSC Committee pursuant to resolution 1988 (2011) (the Taliban sanctions regime). These designations are made by the UNSC sanctions committees, not by the Indian government. India, as a UN member state, is bound by Chapter VII resolutions and implements UNSC designations through the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 and the UAPA.

Ombudsperson mechanism. Individuals, groups, undertakings, or entities seeking to be removed from the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List may submit a de-listing request to the Office of the Ombudsperson, an independent and impartial official appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1904 (2009) and successors. The Ombudsperson process is the only procedure available for de-listing from the 1267/1989/2253 regime; listed persons may not petition the UNSC Committee directly. The Ombudsperson receives the application, gathers information from the designating state (the UN member state that originally proposed the listing) and other member states (including India, if the person has connections to India or if India has relevant information), meets with the petitioner (in person or virtually, at the petitioner's request), and submits a Comprehensive Report to the UNSC Committee with a recommendation to grant or deny the de-listing request. The UNSC Committee must decide whether to de-list the person within 60 days of receiving the Ombudsperson's report. If the Committee takes no action within 60 days, the Ombudsperson's recommendation is deemed to be accepted. If the Ombudsperson recommends de-listing and at least one Committee member (representing a UN member state) objects, the matter may be referred to the Security Council plenary for a decision by vote. The Ombudsperson process typically takes 12 to 30 months from submission of the application to a final Committee decision.

Focal Point mechanism for other UNSC sanctions regimes. For UNSC sanctions regimes other than the 1267/1989/2253 ISIL/Al-Qaida list — including the 1988 Taliban list, sanctions on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), and other country-specific programs — de-listing requests are submitted to the Focal Point for De-listing (established by UNSC Resolution 1730 (2006)). The Focal Point transmits the de-listing request to the designating state and the relevant UNSC sanctions committee. De-listing requires consensus among all Committee members (representing the 15 members of the Security Council); any member may block a de-listing by withholding consent. The Focal Point mechanism does not include an independent Ombudsperson, does not provide for a face-to-face meeting with the petitioner, and does not guarantee a timeline or a reasoned decision. In practice, de-listing through the Focal Point is more difficult and slower than through the Ombudsperson process.

Application procedure. The Ombudsperson application form and detailed instructions are published at https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/ombudsperson/application. The petitioner must provide identifying information (full name, aliases, date of birth, nationality, passport numbers, addresses), the permanent reference number assigned by the UNSC Committee (the "QDi" or "QDe" number for individuals and entities on the ISIL/Al-Qaida list), the grounds for de-listing (mistaken identity, case of mistaken identity, no reasonable basis for the original designation, changed circumstances, completion of sentence or rehabilitation), and supporting evidence (official identity documents, court judgments, certificates of renunciation of terrorist affiliation, letters of support from community leaders or former associates). The petitioner may retain legal counsel; several international law firms and NGOs specialize in UNSC de-listing advocacy. The petitioner does not need to apply through the Government of India or any other member state; individuals may apply directly to the Ombudsperson.

India's role. When the Ombudsperson or the Focal Point transmits a de-listing request to India (because the petitioner is an Indian national, resides in India, or has financial or organizational ties to India), the Ministry of External Affairs coordinates the Government of India's response. MEA consults with the Ministry of Home Affairs (which administers the UAPA and maintains intelligence and law-enforcement assessments of designated terrorists), the Intelligence Bureau, the National Investigation Agency, and other security agencies to determine whether India supports or opposes the de-listing. India may submit information to the Ombudsperson or the UNSC Committee supporting or opposing the request. If the UNSC Committee de-lists the person, the MEA notifies the MHA, the financial regulators (RBI, SEBI, IRDAI), FIU-IND, and CBIC. The Second or Third Schedule to the UAPA is automatically updated to reflect the UNSC Committee's decision; India does not issue a separate domestic de-listing notification for UNSC-listed persons. Financial institutions receive notification of the de-listing through their principal regulators and through the UNSC Committee's public press release (published at https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267/press-releases). The updated consolidated ISIL/Al-Qaida Sanctions List and Taliban Sanctions List are published at www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list and https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1988/materials, respectively.

Requests forwarded by Indian financial institutions. The MHA Procedure for Implementation of Section 51A of the UAPA (revised May 4, 2023) and numerous Reserve Bank of India circulars implementing Section 51A specify that "any request for de-listing received by any [financial institution] is to be forwarded electronically to Joint Secretary (CTCR), MHA for consideration." A financial institution that receives a de-listing request from an account holder whose funds are frozen under Section 51A must forward the request to the Joint Secretary (Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Radicalization Division), Ministry of Home Affairs (contact: jscrcr-mha@gov.in; fax 011-23092569; telephone 011-23092736). The financial institution does not decide the request, grant interim relief, or unfreeze the account pending the MHA's or the Ombudsperson's decision. If the listed person is on a UNSC list (Second or Third Schedule), the MHA will coordinate with MEA, and MEA may submit the request to the Ombudsperson or the Focal Point on behalf of the individual (or advise the individual to apply directly to the Ombudsperson). If the listed person is on the Fourth Schedule (Indian domestic designation), the MHA will treat the request as an application under Section 36 of the UAPA and refer it to the Review Committee.

Practical consequence: two parallel tracks. A person who is designated both (i) by the UNSC Committee (and therefore appears in the Second or Third Schedule to the UAPA) and (ii) separately by the Indian government under Section 35 (and therefore appears in the Fourth Schedule) must pursue two de-listing procedures: an Ombudsperson or Focal Point petition for removal from the UNSC list (which will remove them from the Second or Third Schedule automatically) and a Review Committee application under Section 36 for removal from the Fourth Schedule. Removal from one list does not compel removal from the other. The Indian government retains discretion to maintain a domestic Fourth Schedule designation even after the UNSC de-lists the person, if the government believes on its own assessment that the person remains involved in terrorism.

Source: Procedure for designation and delisting of terrorist individual/organisation on the basis of UNSCR 1267 and UNSCR 1373 and delisting thereof, Ministry of Home Affairs (September 12, 2023) Source: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967), Ministry of Home Affairs Source: Procedure for Implementation of Section 51A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Ministry of Home Affairs (May 4, 2023)

India imposed a prohibition on import of all goods originating in or exported from Pakistan, effective May 2, 2025, marking the country's first comprehensive autonomous trade embargo against a sovereign state. The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, issued a notification on May 2, 2025, prohibiting the import of all goods originating in or exported from Pakistan to India. The prohibition is imposed under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), which empowers the Central Government to make provisions for regulating or prohibiting imports and exports in the public interest, for the conservation of foreign exchange, or for the implementation of international agreements.

## Scope of the prohibition

The DGFT notification prohibits "direct or indirect import or transit of all goods originating in or exported from Pakistan, whether or not freely importable or otherwise permitted, … with immediate effect, until further orders." The restriction is imposed in the interest of national security and public policy. The prohibition applies to:

• All goods originating in Pakistan, regardless of the Harmonized System (HS) classification, tariff treatment, or prior import-policy status (free, restricted, or canalized);
• All goods exported from Pakistan, whether manufactured in Pakistan or trans-shipped through Pakistan from a third country; and
• Direct and indirect imports, a formulation understood to include goods of Pakistani origin routed through third countries to obscure origin.

The notification specifies that any exception to this prohibition will require approval of the Government of India. No standing exemptions, general licences, or de minimis thresholds have been published. The prohibition remains in force "until further orders" from the Central Government; no sunset date or review period is specified.

Unable to confirm the precise regulatory citation (paragraph number, FTP 2023 section reference, or official gazette publication details) for the DGFT notification dated May 2, 2025, as of 2026-06-01.

## Enforcement and related measures

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), under the Ministry of Finance, enforces import prohibitions at all customs ports, airports, land customs stations, and inland container depots through refusal of Bill of Entry clearance. The Press Information Bureau announcement of May 3, 2025, confirms that the prohibition was issued by DGFT and applies to all goods originating in or exported from Pakistan, but does not detail the operational instructions to customs officers, the treatment of goods in transit at the effective date, or the procedure for seeking case-by-case government approval of exemptions.

Contemporaneous press reports indicate that the Directorate General of Shipping (DGS) issued a separate notification prohibiting ships bearing the Pakistan flag from visiting any Indian port and prohibiting Indian-flag ships from visiting any port in Pakistan, citing the need to ensure "safety of Indian assets, cargo and connected infrastructure." The Department of Posts reportedly suspended exchange of inbound mail and parcels from Pakistan through air and surface routes. Unable to confirm the official citation, legal authority, or full text of the DGS or Department of Posts orders as of 2026-06-01.

## Background: escalation from tariff barriers to outright prohibition

India's May 2025 prohibition is the culmination of a series of trade-restrictive measures imposed since 2019. Following the February 14, 2019, Pulwama terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, India raised the customs duty on all goods imported from Pakistan to 200 percent (from varying Most Favoured Nation (MFN) rates) and withdrew Pakistan's MFN status under the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework, invoking the national-security exception under Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The 200-percent duty effectively priced Pakistani goods out of the Indian market; imports remained legally permitted but economically infeasible. India had granted MFN status to Pakistan in 1996; Pakistan had never reciprocated.

India closed the Attari-Wagah land customs station to commercial goods traffic in April 2025, following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025. Attari had been the only operational land border crossing for bilateral India-Pakistan trade.

The May 2025 prohibition converts the de facto embargo (the 200-percent duty rendered imports uneconomical) into a de jure prohibition. Even goods that an importer might be willing to import despite the prohibitive duty are now barred by law. Press reports cite trade data showing that bilateral trade between India and Pakistan had already collapsed by the time of the prohibition: India's imports from Pakistan in the April 2024–January 2025 period totaled approximately USD 0.42 million, limited to niche items such as figs, herbs, certain chemicals, and Himalayan pink salt, down from USD 2.88 million in FY 2023-24 and USD 488.5 million in FY 2017-18 (before the 2019 measures). Unable to confirm these trade figures from an official Indian government source as of 2026-06-01.

Pakistan announced a reciprocal suspension of all trade with India on May 4, 2025, in response to India's prohibition. Unable to confirm the legal instrument, citation, or full scope of Pakistan's reciprocal measure as of 2026-06-01.

## Legal basis and WTO implications

The DGFT notification cites national security and public policy as the legal grounds for the prohibition. The FTDR Act, Section 3(2), empowers the Central Government to make provisions by order for "prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases or in specified classes of cases and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the order,— (a) the import or export of goods of any specified description." Section 5 of the FTDR Act provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, formulate and announce a foreign trade policy and make amendments to it. The Act does not itself define "public interest" or enumerate the circumstances under which national-security restrictions may be imposed; it delegates that determination to the Central Government.

India has not issued a separate public statement (beyond the DGFT notification and the Press Information Bureau release) clarifying whether the prohibition is imposed under the FTDR Act's general public-interest authority or invokes the WTO national-security exception (GATT Article XXI(b)(iii), which permits a member to take "any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests … taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations"). India's invocation of "national security" in the context of Pakistan trade measures is consistent with its prior use of the GATT Article XXI carve-out when it withdrew MFN status in 2019.

WTO rules do not prohibit a member from imposing import bans for national-security reasons; however, the member bears the burden of justifying the measure if challenged in WTO dispute-settlement proceedings. Pakistan could theoretically file a WTO complaint alleging that India's prohibition violates India's tariff bindings and national-treatment obligations under GATT Articles II and III, but Pakistan would need to overcome India's Article XXI defence. The WTO Appellate Body (currently non-functional) has held that Article XXI is justiciable—a panel may review whether the invoking member's characterization of an "emergency in international relations" is plausible—but panels afford members wide discretion in defining their essential security interests. No WTO dispute-settlement proceeding concerning India's Pakistan import prohibition has been initiated as of June 1, 2026.

## Practical compliance requirements for Indian importers

Indian importers who previously sourced goods from Pakistan (or who sourced goods of third-country origin trans-shipped through Pakistan) must:

• Cease all import activity involving Pakistan-origin goods, regardless of prior contractual commitments, letters of credit, or advance payments. Customs authorities will refuse Bill of Entry clearance for goods originating in or exported from Pakistan.
• Verify the origin of goods trans-shipped through third countries to ensure that no component or input originates in Pakistan. The DGFT notification prohibits both "direct or indirect" imports. Importers should request certificates of origin from the exporting country and may face enhanced customs scrutiny for goods shipped from countries with known re-export activity.
• Notify foreign suppliers and cancel purchase orders for Pakistan-origin goods or goods trans-shipped through Pakistan. Goods refused entry must be re-exported at the importer's expense or destroyed.

India does not impose secondary sanctions. The DGFT prohibition applies only to imports into India of goods originating in or exported from Pakistan. It does not penalize third-country trade with Pakistan, Indian companies' operations in third countries that source Pakistani goods for sale outside India, or financial institutions that process payments for Pakistan-related trade not involving India.

However, the prohibition does affect transit trade: goods destined for third countries (Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan) that would ordinarily transit through India are now prohibited if those goods originate in or are exported from Pakistan.

## Distinction from UNSC sanctions framework

India's Pakistan prohibition is an autonomous trade sanction imposed under domestic law (the FTDR Act and the Foreign Trade Policy 2023) for national-security and public-policy reasons. It is not an implementation of a United Nations Security Council resolution. India's sanctions architecture otherwise rests primarily on implementation of UNSC sanctions under the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (see the sections on the legal framework, financial-institution compliance under Section 51A of the UAPA, and humanitarian exemptions under UNSC resolutions). The Pakistan prohibition represents India's first significant departure from the UNSC-only sanctions framework and its first comprehensive autonomous embargo against a sovereign state. Unlike UNSC-mandated sanctions, which apply to all UN member states and typically include humanitarian exemptions and delisting procedures, India's Pakistan prohibition is unilateral, contains no published exemption procedure (other than case-by-case government approval), and has no scheduled review or expiration date.

Source: Government Prohibits Import of All Goods Originating in or exported from Pakistan to India, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (May 3, 2025) Source: Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (Act 22 of 1992), Section 3(2) and Section 5, Ministry of Commerce and Industry