Debt Crisis in emerging and developing economies has intensified and waves of debt accumulation over the last five decades have been unabated. These countries have constantly been trapped in the web of debts. The global debt including both the public and private of emerging and developing economies has reached a record high of almost 170 percent of GDP ($55 trillion) in 2018, has increased 54 percent of GDP since 2010. This staggering growth in debts has led to an intense debate on whether the recent rapid increase in debt is indeed a genuine reason for concern. The low-income countries have largely contended to argue the legitimacy of the debts. This requires systematically explaining basic criteria that can characterize the debt as illegitimate debt, and accordingly, it should not be repaid and which eventually determines the potential repudiation of the debt. Since the 1980s, Jubilee Debt Coalition emerged on the global scene that has been campaigning for relief of burdensome debt for low-income countries and emphasized to cancel “illegitimate debt”. Jubilee2000 was an international coalition movement running in over 40 countries, have advanced their demands, “all illegitimate debt, which has followed the doctrine of odious debts and the debts resulted from failed development projects should be canceled”. The movement clamorously argued, “Debt steals resources from meeting people’s most basic needs”. Jubilee has referred to the high-interest rates, where new debts are borrowed in order to repay old debts, thus leads to more indebtedness. The arguments go on further that debts were extended to support corrupt regimes or dictatorships, the debts have fueled corruption and that debt for dams and mining projects “resulted in intense environmental and social damage”. The World Bank and the IMF have virtually turned poor countries into loan addicts. The Jubilee movement asserts that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund use indebtedness as a vehicle to impose conditions “designed in the interest of the elites and it accelerates further impoverishment of the people and the reasons for sustained poverty, the debts must be declared as illegitimate”. The illegitimate debts must have legal implications that the debts contracted under genuine extenuating circumstances must entail the repudiation of the repayment obligation. The doctrine of “odious debts” could portray a potential solution to the heavy indebtedness of poor and fragile countries. The concept of odious debts lacks universal consensus concerning the exact definition. The expression of odious debts is somewhat elusive, touching the line between law and politics and between law and morals. The legal pundits are more inclined on the elements of such “norm” – i.e. whether there is a workable definition of odious debt that can reliably justify the exemption from the repayment of debts. The term “illegitimate debt” has never been used in legislation or court rulings. In 2000, Argentine Federal Judge Dr. Jorge Ballesteros ruled that the debt contracted during the tenure of the military dictatorship (1976-1983) was illegitimate. The momentous ruling was the result of an audit of Argentina’s debt that was conducted by the judiciary. Odious debt has loosely been defined as external debt used in ways that were not beneficial or were harmful to the state. It must invariably have adverse effects on the lives of the people. This is something critical that onerous debts must be legitimated and must neither be odious nor unsustainable Odious debt has loosely been defined as external debt used in ways that were not beneficial or were harmful to the state. It must invariably have adverse effects on the lives of the people. This is something critical that onerous debts must be legitimated and must neither be odious nor unsustainable. Patricia Adams is an economist and an expert on odious debt and its deleterious impact. She potently argued, “the implications of this ruling extend beyond Argentina and send a clear and loud message to the citizens of all the highly indebted countries that international creditors were responsible for ensuring that the money loaned was used for the interests and needs of the state”. In March-2018, the IMF issued a report and it examined macroeconomic developments and prospects in low-income developing countries (LIDCs). The report aimed to the member of group countries whose gross national income (GNI) per capita lies below a threshold level and where external financial relationships have not lifted their quality of life. Almost 40 percent of Low-Income Developing Countries are currently exposed to high risk of external debt distress. Debt burdens and vulnerabilities have doubled the number of countries since 2013. Smaller countries are more vulnerable where public debt burdens have continued to rise sharply. High debt is a barrier to the sustainable development of low-income countries. The study covered 59 IMF member countries in the group, consisting of about one-fifth – 1.5 billion people of the world’s population but contributes only four percent of global output. In June-2019, the Government of Pakistan has constituted a high-powered Commission of Inquiry to probe how foreign debts swelled to Rs. 24,000 billion during the period from 2008 to 2018. The commission will probe whether or not the debts were utilized in accordance with the requirements, for which they were acquired, whether major infrastructure or public sector development projects were undertaken. The commission was comprised of the officials of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The commission was required to submit its report within six months and was mandated to work under an act of the Parliament. The mandate of the commission is limited in the scope of investigation of the debt burden that grew and covered only the last decade. The formation of the Commission of inquiry has a limitation in its constituent parts. Apparently, the commission is constituted in such a manner that it seems more of a security concern rather than a national issue. The debt management is at the center of attention, incredibly, public debt management has not been well understood, and the acute paucity of competence can be realized of debt professional or a debt professional of international repute and must be a part of the coveted team. The writer is a freelancer