Transnational organised and environmental crimes need multilateral responses. Evaluate India's approach at UN forums.

Terrorism, drug trafficking, cyber-fraud and wildlife crime move across borders faster than any one country's police can follow them. At the 15th UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Abu Dhabi, 2026), the theme was the rule of law and the 2030 Agenda "in the digital age". India presented itself there as a partner that offers both principles and working models [1]. India's approach is strong in intent, but its capacity at home backs it only in part.

Strengths of India's approach

• Zero tolerance on terrorism: India restated this stance and called for global cooperation against terrorism and drug trafficking [1].
• Working through UN institutions: India met the UNODC Executive Director on drugs, organised crime and judicial partnerships [1].
• Environmental crime on the agenda: India named wildlife crime, illegal logging and toxic waste dumping as crimes that need global cooperation. This fits the Congress theme of "people and planet" [1].
• Models other countries can use: India showcased the BNS, BNSS and BSA, which rely on forensics and digital-first procedures [1]. Its I4C system freezes mule accounts and has saved over Rs 7,130 crore across more than 23.02 lakh complaints [2].
• Bilateral work inside a multilateral forum: India and the UAE agreed to cooperate through IIAC and DIAC, including on digital dispute resolution [1].

Limitations

• Weak capacity behind the showcase: Forensic investigation is now compulsory for offences punishable with 7 years or more. Yet the government admits a significant shortage of trained forensic staff [3]. Only seven central forensic labs work today, and eight more are only proposed [4].
• Incomplete data: The cyber-fraud figure shows money saved, not total money lost [2].
• Overlapping laws: The BNS adds terrorism and organised crime as offences, but special laws already cover them. This creates duplication [5].
• Doubts about the rule of law at home: About 77% of prisoners are undertrials [5]. This weakens India's case when it speaks about justice abroad.
• Environmental crime: India raised it as a priority but did not present a domestic model for it, unlike for cybercrime [1].

Verdict: India's approach is largely constructive. It helps set the agenda and shares working models. But its credibility abroad depends on delivery at home.

India combines firm principles with practical models at UN forums. To match its words with action, it should open the proposed forensic labs within a fixed time and staff them properly [4]. It should also publish data on money lost as well as money saved, and build a showcase for enforcement against environmental crime. These steps would strengthen India's credibility under SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions).