BRICS 2026 Supported The UN Cybercrime Treaty, Why Didn’t India Sign It?

In India, 24.03 lakh financial-cyber-fraud complaints involving ₹22,495 crore were reported in 2025, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs. India separately recorded 29.44 lakh cyber-security incidents during the year. In the US, the FBI received more than 10 lakh internet-crime complaints, with reported losses of $20.88 billion, in 2025. In today’s world, cyber-crime is a problem beyond international borders.

The problem is no longer simply catching a hacker. A victim could be in India, the criminal organisation somewhere overseas, the servers in another country and the stolen money moved through several jurisdictions. Getting the digital evidence and following the money therefore requires countries to cooperate.

That is where the UN Convention against Cybercrime comes in. Adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2024, it creates the first global UN framework specifically aimed at strengthening cooperation against cybercrime and the sharing of electronic evidence. It provides mechanisms covering electronic evidence, mutual legal assistance, extradition and joint investigations. 

Why BRICS brought it up

At the BRICS Summit in New Delhi on September 12–13, 2026, leaders explicitly encouraged states to sign and ratify the UN Cybercrime Convention and work towards its rapid entry into force. The declaration also called for stronger BRICS cooperation between law-enforcement agencies and Computer Emergency Response Teams. 

The timing is significant. The same declaration highlighted cross-border fraud and scam networks, calling for countries to cooperate in dismantling these operations, tracing criminal proceeds and improving information-sharing between law-enforcement and financial-intelligence agencies. For India, where financial cyber-fraud complaints reached 24 lakh in a single year, this is a very practical issue. 

So why hasn’t India signed?

This is where the story gets interesting.

India has not publicly announced a single reason for not signing the Convention. It would therefore be wrong to say that India has rejected it. But signing would require New Delhi to accept a new set of international procedures for cross-border cybercrime investigations and electronic evidence.

The trade-off is straightforward. The treaty can help Indian investigators obtain evidence from other countries, but other countries would also be able to seek India’s cooperation under the treaty. That makes questions of sovereignty, domestic law, privacy, judicial oversight and the handling of foreign requests important.

India has historically been cautious about arrangements involving cross-border access to data. Its reluctance to join the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention, for example, has been linked to concerns about sovereignty and transborder access to computer data. 

There is also a question over the Convention’s four-year threshold for “serious crimes.” Some analysis has pointed out that several offences under India’s Information Technology Act carry maximum penalties below that threshold, potentially limiting the treaty’s usefulness for some Indian cybercrime investigations.

What happens if India doesn’t sign?

India would not be cut off from international cybercrime cooperation. It could continue using MLATs, bilateral agreements, Interpol channels, police-to-police cooperation and BRICS mechanisms. The 2026 BRICS declaration itself commits members to greater cyber and law-enforcement cooperation.

But India would remain outside the Convention’s specific multilateral legal framework. That could matter when investigators need electronic evidence or other assistance from countries that become parties to the Convention. Instead of using the treaty’s mechanisms, India would have to rely on whatever alternative cooperation arrangements exist with those countries.

There is also a reciprocal benefit that India would give up: being a party would make it easier for Indian authorities to request assistance from other participating countries under a common framework.

As of September 2026, the Convention had 82 signatories and three parties and had not yet entered into force. It needs 40 ratifications, acceptances, approvals or accessions to do so. The Convention is open for signature until December 31, 2026. 

That leaves India with a difficult calculation. The country has a strong interest in faster international cooperation because so much cyber-enabled financial crime crosses borders. But joining also means accepting reciprocal obligations and a common framework for handling foreign evidence requests.

And that is what makes the BRICS development interesting: India, while hosting a summit that urged the world to join the UN Cybercrime Convention, still has to decide whether it wants to become part of that system itself.