NEW DELHI — India’s 14-year unbroken presence on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ended this month as Judge Dalveer Bhandari completed his final term, leaving the world’s highest judicial body without an Indian jurist for the first time since 2012. The quiet departure comes as New Delhi mounts an aggressive campaign for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the 2028-2029 term, raising questions about how the country will allocate its diplomatic capital across competing multilateral priorities.
What happened
Judge Dalveer Bhandari, a former justice of the Supreme Court of India, stepped down from the ICJ on February 5, 2026, after serving two consecutive nine-year terms. His exit leaves the 15-member bench without an Indian judge for the first time in over a decade. Bhandari was first elected in 2012 and re-elected in 2017 after a contentious race against a British candidate, during which India secured 183 of 193 votes in the UN General Assembly—a record margin that underscored New Delhi’s growing influence in multilateral forums.
The timing of Bhandari’s departure is notable: it coincides with India’s intensifying bid for a non-permanent UNSC seat, which the government has framed as part of a broader push for reform in global governance institutions. While the ICJ and UNSC serve distinct functions—one as a judicial body, the other as a political decision-making forum—both are critical platforms for shaping international norms and resolving disputes. India’s absence from the ICJ bench removes a key channel for its judicial diplomacy at a moment when the country is seeking to expand its footprint in other global institutions.
Why it matters
India’s representation at the ICJ has been more than symbolic. The court has adjudicated several high-stakes cases in recent years, including disputes over maritime boundaries, state sovereignty, and alleged violations of international law. India has been directly involved in at least two ICJ cases during Bhandari’s tenure: the 2019 Kulbhushan Jadhav case, in which Pakistan was ordered to review the death sentence of an Indian national accused of espionage, and the 2023 Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala between Chile and Bolivia, where India had strategic interests in regional water-sharing norms.
While the ICJ’s rulings are based on legal merit rather than national representation, the presence of a judge from a particular country can shape the court’s composition and deliberative dynamics. Bhandari’s judicial philosophy—often emphasizing state sovereignty and non-intervention—aligned closely with India’s traditional diplomatic stance. His participation in landmark cases, such as the 2022 advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and the 2023 Nicaragua v. Colombia maritime dispute, provided India with a direct voice in shaping international jurisprudence.
The absence of an Indian judge could have practical implications for future cases involving India or its regional interests. For instance, the ICJ is currently hearing a case brought by South Africa against Israel over alleged violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza, a dispute with significant geopolitical ramifications for India’s foreign policy. While the court’s rulings are not influenced by the nationality of its judges, the absence of an Indian perspective in deliberations could subtly alter the bench’s internal dynamics.
Background and context
India’s engagement with the ICJ dates back to the court’s inception in 1946, but its continuous representation began only in 2012 with Bhandari’s election. His re-election in 2017 was particularly significant: it marked the first time a non-Western candidate defeated a permanent UNSC member’s nominee in a head-to-head race. The victory was widely seen as a diplomatic triumph for India, reflecting its growing clout in the UN General Assembly, where developing nations hold a majority.
The ICJ’s role has expanded in recent years, with states increasingly turning to the court to resolve disputes that might otherwise escalate into conflict. The court’s docket has included cases on climate change obligations, nuclear disarmament, and the legality of military interventions—issues that intersect with India’s strategic interests. For example, India has been a vocal advocate for reforming international institutions to better reflect the interests of the Global South, a position that aligns with the ICJ’s growing caseload involving developing nations.
However, securing a seat on the ICJ is a complex process. Judges are elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council, requiring a majority in both bodies. The process is often politicized, with regional blocs and diplomatic alliances playing a decisive role. India’s ability to nominate a successor to Bhandari will depend on its ability to navigate these dynamics, particularly as it simultaneously campaigns for the UNSC seat.
Competing claims and uncertainty
The Indian government has not yet announced a candidate to replace Bhandari, nor has it provided a timeline for nominating a successor. This silence has fueled speculation about New Delhi’s priorities. Some analysts argue that India may deprioritize the ICJ in favor of focusing its diplomatic resources on the UNSC bid, which is seen as a higher-stakes campaign with more immediate geopolitical implications. Others suggest that India could still nominate a candidate but may delay the process to avoid a divisive election that could distract from its UNSC ambitions.
There is also uncertainty about how India’s absence from the ICJ bench will affect its legal strategy in future cases. While the court’s rulings are binding, the absence of an Indian judge could limit New Delhi’s ability to shape the court’s internal deliberations. For instance, in the Jadhav case, Bhandari’s presence on the bench was closely watched in India, even though the final ruling was unanimous. His participation may have provided subtle insights into the court’s reasoning, which could be valuable for India’s legal team in future disputes.
Another point of contention is whether India’s exit from the ICJ could weaken its moral authority in advocating for reform of other international institutions. New Delhi has consistently argued that global governance bodies, including the UNSC, are outdated and unrepresentative. However, its decision to step back from the ICJ—even temporarily—could be interpreted as a retreat from multilateral engagement, potentially undermining its reformist narrative.
What to watch next
1. Nomination timeline: The Indian government’s next steps will be closely watched. If New Delhi announces a candidate for the ICJ in the coming months, it would signal a continued commitment to judicial diplomacy. A prolonged silence, however, could indicate a strategic shift toward prioritizing the UNSC bid.
2. UNSC campaign dynamics: India’s bid for the 2028-2029 non-permanent seat will face competition from Ireland and Norway, both of which have strong track records in multilateral diplomacy. New Delhi’s ability to secure the seat will depend on its ability to build alliances, particularly within the Asia-Pacific Group and the Western European and Others Group (WEOG).
3. ICJ caseload: The court’s docket in the coming years will be critical. If cases involving India or its regional interests arise, the absence of an Indian judge could become a more pressing issue. For example, the ICJ is expected to hear a case on the legality of unilateral sanctions, a topic with direct implications for India’s economic diplomacy.
4. Diplomatic signaling: India’s approach to other multilateral institutions, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), could provide clues about its broader strategy. If New Delhi increases its engagement with these bodies, it may signal a continued commitment to multilateralism. Conversely, a focus on bilateral diplomacy could indicate a shift in priorities.
Conclusion
India’s departure from the ICJ bench marks the end of an era in its multilateral diplomacy. For 14 years, the country had a direct voice in shaping international jurisprudence, a platform that aligned with its broader ambitions of reforming global governance. The timing of this exit—coinciding with its UNSC campaign—raises questions about how New Delhi will balance its diplomatic resources in an increasingly competitive multilateral landscape.
While the ICJ and UNSC serve different functions, both are critical to India’s vision of a more equitable international order. The absence of an Indian judge at the ICJ could have subtle but meaningful implications for cases involving India or its regional interests. Meanwhile, the UNSC bid presents an opportunity for New Delhi to demonstrate its leadership on the global stage, but it also comes with significant diplomatic challenges.
As India navigates this transition, its choices will reflect broader strategic priorities. Will it prioritize judicial diplomacy at the ICJ, or will it focus its efforts on securing a seat at the UNSC? The answer may shape India’s role in global governance for years to come.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Wire — source.
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Google News India — source.
