Who Speaks for India at the UN? – Some questions on representation by MPs – Indian Blog of International Law

Shantanu Singh

On October 7, 2025, the Economic Times reported that the Indian government planned to send a delegation of Members of Parliament (MP) to New York to attend the UN General Assembly’s (UNGA) 80^th session. The report said that the objective of sending this delegation was to:

“..familiarise the MPs with the functioning of the UN, multilateralism and various global issues that will enable the lawmakers to equip them with knowledge necessary for participating in debates..”

The Economic Times report went on to note:

“..parliamentarians hailing from different ideologies, regions and cultures, would represent India in UNGA, a call taken by the Centre to send out the message to the global community of political unity in India on international issues.”

Interestingly, this was not a new decision. Or one that had been influenced by the government’s decision earlier this year to send seven all-party delegations of MPs to different regions of the world to convey India’s stance after the Pahalgam attack. In fact, as the Economic Times report noted, the decision to send a delegation of MPs to the UNGA session this year revived an Indian practice that had been stopped eight years ago.

I was quite intrigued by this Indian practice. Curiosity led me to collect basic data on statements made by Indian MPs at the UNGA using the information put out by the Permanent Mission of India (PMI) to the United Nations in New York. In doing so, I counted the number of statements made by MPs at the UNGA and – because of my interest and the relevance of the International Law Commission’s (ILC) work to this blog – recorded whether India’s statement on the ILC’s Annual Report had been made by an official or an MP. The data is presented in the table below.

Two conclusions can immediately follow from it. First, it confirms the Economic Times report: India indeed has a consistent practice of its MPs making statements on its behalf at the UNGA. This practice has existed since 2000, with 2001, 2016 and 2019 to 2023 being exceptional years in which no Indian MPs made such statements. But, while the Economic Times claimed that this practice is being revived after eight years i.e., after 2017, several Indian UNGA statements in 2017, 2018 and 2024 were in fact delivered by MPs.

Second, India’s statements on the ILC’s Annual Report have been mostly delivered by MPs. Of the 25 years for which records are provided by the PMI, Indian statements on the ILC’s Annual Report were delivered by Indian MP(s) 11 times, by Official(s) 9 times, and by a combination of both 5 times. Put otherwise, MPs and not officials, usually high-ranking officials of the Legal & Treaties Division of the External Affairs Ministry, have delivered India’s statements on the ILC’s Annual Report.

But, beyond these preliminary conclusions, I was left with several questions.

First, based on what legal authority does the government involve sitting MPs in representation of the Republic of India at the UNGA? Pursuant to Article 73 of the Constitution, the executive power of the government extends to all matters over which the Parliament has the competence to legislate, and this includes matters relating to the UN (through a combined reading of Article 246 and Entry 12 of the Union List). The government exercises its executive power to the exclusion of all other branches of the State, primarily because Article 53 specifies that the executive power is vested in the President alone and may be exercised by the President or an official to whom it is subsequently delegated.

For the delegation of the executive powers, the President has issued the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, and delegated to the External Affairs Ministry the charge of dealing with the United Nations. In light of this apparent separation of powers and allocation of responsibility by the President, what legal basis remains for involving MPs in representation at the UNGA? And because they are present at the UNGA in their official capacities, does this practice not come into conflict with separation of powers embedded in the Constitution?

Second, what effect does this practice have on officials to whom the responsibility for dealing with the UN has been delegated? Similar to the Permanent Missions of other UN Members, the PMI houses Indian diplomats and officials responsible for representing the Republic of India at the UN. Does replacing these diplomats and officials with MPs reduce or remove the seriousness with which India’s engagement at the UN should be undertaken? This is not to suggest that officials are altogether removed from the process as a result of this practice; as I am very sure, statements delivered by MPs are in fact prepared by the PMI officials, in consultation with the government, and MPs merely deliver them at the UNGA. But this practice does reduce the role and responsibility of an official, appointed for the specific purpose of representing India at the UN. It removes the official from the important diplomatic or thematic context of an UN meeting, to say less of the role to which an MP is reduced. In a worst-case scenario, this practice perhaps harms perception of the Indian diplomatic corps as well.

To understand this better let us take the example of the predominant practice of MPs delivering India’s statement on the ILC’s Annual Reports. The UNGA Sixth Committee takes up the ILC’s Annual Report during the ‘International Law Week’ in October each year when top-level legal advisors from UN Members convene to share their views on the ILC’s work. Involving officials at such important UN meetings does indicate a UN Member’s commitment not only to the role of such meetings or the value of discussion that takes place – keeping in mind how the Sixth Committee is instrumental in codification of international law – but also to professionalisation of legal cadre. As officials responsible for expounding international law and holding recognised competence in the eyes of their government, legal officers of the Legal & Treaties Division are better placed to address topics considered by the Sixth Committee. And as part of the invisible college of international lawyers, they are also conscious to how they are perceived as lawyers from and of India among the international legal advisors of other UN Member States, and how their own government perceives them and their role in comparison with the others. As a result, this practice of involving MPs in their place at the Sixth Committee likely diminishes the role for which a legal advisor is appointed and harms their self-perception.

However, even if this practice could find justification in law or professionalism, other questions still arise. It is unclear what is the mechanism through which the government chooses MPs to form part of Indian delegations or what criteria are applied in the selection process? Does, say, an MP required to be part of a parliamentary committee responsible for scrutinizing the foreign policy? Or, are MPs required to have experience in foreign affairs? Are the political affiliations of MPs important? And, if the objective is to “familiarise the MPs with the functioning of the UN” to “equip them with knowledge necessary for participating in debates”, has this practice been a success in the work of the MPs? How do we measure its success? Do MPs, for example, discuss international legal issues or question the government on matters of international law at all? If yes, have the quality or specificity of those questions improved? If not, then what is the rationale for reviving the practice, given the probably significant financial charge it puts on the exchequer.

(Shantanu Singh is an International Trade Lawyer.)