No, India is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Here is a detailed explanation: 1. What is the Rome Statute? The Rome Statute, adopted in 1998, is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), which investigates and prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. 2. India's Position India signed the Rome Statute during its initial stages but has not ratified it, meaning it is not legally bound by the ICC's jurisdiction. As a result, India is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize its authority over Indian citizens. 3. Reasons for Not Joining India has expressed several concerns, such as: The broad definition of crimes, especially the crime of aggression. Fear of politicization and misuse of the court for targeting certain countries or leaders. Concerns about sovereignty, especially regarding the ability of an international body to prosecute its nationals. India believes in national jurisdiction and prefers domestic mechanisms for prosecuting international crimes. 4. Current Status As of now, over 120 countries are parties to the Rome Statute. India continues to support accountability for international crimes but prefers to do so through domestic laws and UN-mandated mechanisms, rather than through the ICC. Summary: India is not a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction over Indian nationals. It has chosen not to ratify the treaty due to concerns over sovereignty, politicization, and the scope of the court's powers.

Dear Client, India is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).India was party to the drafting process but declined to sign and ratify the treaty based on sovereignty, definition of crimes, and politicized role of the UN Security Council referring cases to the ICC. India protested the ICC's jurisdiction over internal armed conflicts because it feared interference in its internal affairs like insurgencies.It also disagreed with the wide definitions of war crimes and the crime of aggression, which might be contradictory to its national security policies and nuclear doctrine. Essentially, though India advocates for accountability of international crimes, it holds the view that such proceedings must be respectful of national sovereignty and non-political in nature. Thus, it has chosen to deal with this through internal legal mechanisms instead of acceding to the ICC. I hope this answer helps. In case of future queries, please feel free to contact us. Thank you.