Russian President Vladimir Putin’s two-day visit to New Delhi has drawn global attention, not only because of its diplomatic significance but also because it marks one of his most high-profile foreign trips since the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against him in March 2023.

India has rolled out an extensive security grid and is set to host the 23rd annual India-Russia summit, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi scheduled to host a private dinner for the Russian leader. Yet one question dominates international discourse: how can Vladimir Putin visit India without fear of arrest?

This explainer breaks down what the ICC warrant means, why India has no legal obligation to act on it, how major powers treat the ICC, and what this visit signals for geopolitics.

What led to the ICC arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin?

In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. The court accused the Russian president of unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. The warrant was part of a broader investigation into alleged war crimes committed during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, was established to prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Although the court’s roots go back to the Rome Statute adopted in 1998, the reporting you shared states 2022, which appears to be an error and should be fact-checked before publication.

Ukraine formally joined the ICC framework in January and has granted the court jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed on its territory.

Why India is not obligated to act on the ICC warrant

Vladimir Putin can visit India without concern because New Delhi is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC. This single legal distinction removes any obligation for India to enforce ICC decisions, including arrest warrants.

India’s longstanding position on the Rome Statute

India chose not to sign the Rome Statute during Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s tenure. The official Indian delegation, led by the then-Minister of State for External Affairs Vasundhara Raje, raised several objections:

• The ICC’s jurisdiction over internal or non-international armed conflicts
• The absence of terrorism as a defined international crime
• Concerns about potential misuse of the court’s authority
• Fears that politically motivated cases could infringe on national sovereignty

New Delhi argued that the ICC’s broad and evolving mandate posed risks for states dealing with cross-border terrorism, secessionist movements, and insurgencies.

India’s strategic autonomy in action

India’s refusal to sign the Rome Statute aligns with its decades-old approach to foreign policy: strategic autonomy.

This principle allows India to:

• Make decisions based on national interest rather than bloc pressures
• Avoid legal commitments that could constrain military or security operations
• Maintain flexibility in global alliances, especially amid multipolar competition

India’s stance mirrors that of other major powers, including the United States, Russia and China — all non-members of the ICC.

How international law treats ICC warrants in non-member states

One of the biggest misconceptions about the ICC is that its warrants apply universally. They do not.

ICC jurisdiction only binds member states

Only states that have ratified the Rome Statute are legally required to cooperate with ICC arrest warrants or investigations. Countries that have not ratified the statute, like India, face no legal consequences for non-cooperation.

Non-members may still cooperate voluntarily

While non-member countries can choose to assist the ICC on a case-by-case basis, they are under no binding obligation. India has historically preferred bilateral or multilateral diplomatic channels over judicial cooperation with the ICC.

Geopolitical realities shape compliance

Even some ICC member states have resisted arresting high-profile leaders, citing diplomatic or security concerns. Past examples include Sudan’s former president Omar al-Bashir, who travelled to multiple African states despite ICC warrants.

Putin’s ability to travel to India fits into this broader global pattern where legal obligations vary, and political considerations often prevail.

How do the US, Russia and China view the ICC?

India is not the only major power outside the ICC system. The United States, China, and Russia, three of the world’s most influential nations, have maintained varying degrees of distance from the court.

The US position

Washington has never ratified the Rome Statute. Successive US administrations, especially under Donald Trump, have been openly critical of the ICC’s reach.

The Trump administration even imposed sanctions on the ICC’s then-chief prosecutor for investigating alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan. Trump also accused the court of targeting the US and Israel, particularly after warrants were issued for Israeli leaders over the Gaza conflict.

Although the Biden administration later lifted those sanctions, the US has not joined the court and continues to emphasize sovereignty over international judicial oversight.

Russia and China

Russia initially signed the Rome Statute but never ratified it. In 2016, Moscow formally withdrew its signature, arguing the ICC was ineffective and politically biased.

China has consistently rejected the ICC’s jurisdiction, citing concerns about interference in domestic affairs.

This shared skepticism toward the ICC helps explain why the court’s authority remains limited across much of the great-power landscape.

What does Putin’s India visit signal geopolitically?

Putin’s visit to India serves several strategic purposes for both sides.

Strengthening a long-standing partnership

India and Russia share decades of defense, energy, and geopolitical cooperation. From BrahMos missile development to long-term oil supply agreements, the relationship is built on mutual dependence.

A message to the global community

The visit demonstrates that:

• India’s foreign policy remains independent despite Western pressure
• Russia retains diplomatic partners even amid the Ukraine war
• The India-Russia relationship continues adapting to the new global order

While Western governments may see the ICC warrant as a tool for accountability, India views its bilateral ties with Russia through a separate lens shaped by national interests.

A test of multipolar diplomacy

India’s careful balancing act, maintaining ties with Russia while deepening strategic cooperation with the US, showcases the realities of a multipolar world where alliances are fluid and transactional.

TL;DR

Vladimir Putin can visit India freely because India is not a member of the International Criminal Court and is not bound by the Rome Statute. While the ICC has issued an arrest warrant against him over alleged war crimes in Ukraine, non-member states like India, the US, China, and Russia have no legal obligation to enforce such warrants. India’s decision reflects its longstanding policy of strategic autonomy and its deep bilateral partnership with Russia.