SCO Trade Council Provides Institutional Clarification on Nikhil Goyal’s Former Role

New Delhi, October 1, 2026: The Secretariat of the SCO Trade Council has issued a formal clarification regarding Nikhil Goyal’s former association with the organisation, providing details about his earlier honorary designation and the Council’s current position on institutional representation. The statement addresses questions around the former appointment, references to the Council in public material, […]

SCO Trade Council Provides Institutional Clarification on Nikhil Goyal’s Former Role

New Delhi, October 1, 2026: The Secretariat of the SCO Trade Council has issued a formal clarification regarding Nikhil Goyal’s former association with the organisation, providing details about his earlier honorary designation and the Council’s current position on institutional representation.

The statement addresses questions around the former appointment, references to the Council in public material, and communications involving government departments, diplomatic institutions and other organisations.

The Council has confirmed that the earlier honorary appointment is no longer active. It has also clarified that Goyal does not currently hold a position or mandate to represent the organisation.

SCO Trade Council Clarifies Former Honorary Association

Nikhil Goyal was previously associated with the SCO Trade Council as an Honorary Trade Commissioner. The Secretariat has clarified that the designation is now part of his former association with the organisation.

According to the Council, the honorary designation was an organisational position and was not a government-issued or formal diplomatic appointment.

The clarification is intended to provide a clear distinction between the earlier honorary association and the Council’s current institutional structure.

The Secretariat has also stated that decisions concerning appointments within the organisation are matters for the Council and its authorised bodies.

Council Provides Clarity on Institutional Communications

The Secretariat has addressed communications concerning the former appointment that have been shared with government departments, diplomatic institutions and other third parties.

The Council said it has previously clarified its status as a non-governmental organisation. It has also responded to questions connected with Right to Information applications submitted to various ministries.

According to the Council, the former honorary position was associated with a non-governmental organisation and should not be interpreted as a government or diplomatic appointment.

The Secretariat has requested that future references and correspondence reflect this distinction. It has also encouraged institutions seeking factual information about the Council to use its authorised communication channels.

Public References to the Former Designation

The Council has also clarified the context of publicly available material that refers to Goyal’s former honorary position.

Some material includes photographs from public events alongside references to the earlier designation. The Secretariat has stated that such material should be understood in the context of the former association and should not be taken as confirmation of current authority or representation.

The organisation has also recorded that a website connected with the former position appeared following the appointment and has since been removed.

The Council stated that relevant records have been retained for its institutional purposes.

In another part of the clarification, the Secretariat said that it did not issue an official SCO Trade Council email account to Goyal. It has requested that independently created email addresses or digital accounts not be presented as official accounts of the organisation.

SCO Trade Council Reaffirms Its Non-Governmental Status

The SCO Trade Council has reiterated that it operates as a non-governmental trade and business platform.

Based in Washington, DC, the organisation focuses on commercial engagement, business cooperation and economic connections among businesses and institutions linked with countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation region.

The Council has stated that its honorary designations should be understood within the framework of its organisational activities and should not be presented as government appointments or formal diplomatic positions.

The clarification is intended to help institutions, businesses and members of the public distinguish between former organisational designations and current representation.

The Secretariat has also requested that the Council’s name and former designations be used in a manner that accurately reflects their status.

Council Communicates With Relevant Authorities

The Council has stated that it has communicated its position to relevant authorities, including the Chief Minister’s Offices of Maharashtra, Odisha and Chhattisgarh, where appropriate.

The statement also refers to police complaints that have reportedly been filed or remain under consideration in connection with the matter.

The Secretariat has maintained that any allegations connected with such complaints are matters for the competent authorities to examine under applicable law.

The Council has not commented on the merits or outcome of any investigation or complaint. It has stated that any conclusions relating to such matters should come from the appropriate authorities.

This approach keeps the Council’s institutional clarification separate from any legal process that may be underway.

Position on Future Representation

As part of its formal communication, the Secretariat has requested that Goyal’s former honorary designation not be presented as a current position or as a government or diplomatic appointment.

The Council has also asked that its name not be used in a manner that could create confusion about current endorsement, affiliation or authority.

The Secretariat has requested that communications concerning the internal matter be directed through appropriate channels rather than circulated to unrelated government departments, diplomatic institutions or other third parties.

The Council stated that it will retain relevant correspondence and publicly available material for its institutional records. Where required, such records may be shared with legal advisers or competent authorities.

The Secretariat has reiterated that its position concerning the former honorary appointment remains unchanged.

Official Channel for Verification

The SCO Trade Council has invited government departments, diplomatic missions, institutions and members of the public to contact its Secretariat for factual information concerning the former appointment and the organisation’s current institutional structure.

The Council has provided the following details for official communication:

SCO Trade Council Secretariat

Phone: +91 98206 71461
Email: secretariat@scotradecouncil.org

The Secretariat has stated that official communication through its authorised channels is the appropriate way to confirm current institutional designations and representation.

About the SCO Trade Council

The SCO Trade Council is a non-governmental trade and business platform based in Washington, DC. It focuses on commercial engagement, business cooperation and economic linkages among businesses and institutions connected with countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation region.

The organisation works in the area of international business relations and trade engagement. Its latest statement provides clarification on its institutional identity, former honorary appointments and the distinction between previous associations and current representation.

The Council has encouraged institutions and members of the public to rely on official communication when seeking information about its current representatives or organisational positions.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the clarification issued by the SCO Trade Council Secretariat. References to appointments, communications, complaints or other matters are presented as stated by the organisation and should not be treated as independent findings unless confirmed by the relevant authority.