India

Express Tribune | English | News | Jan. 23, 2026 | Geopolitical Conflict and Disputes

The Ministry of Water Resources informed Pakistan's National Assembly that India unilaterally suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty in April 2025 following a militant attack in held Kashmir. This suspension has led to a significant reduction in water flow in the Chenab River, threatening approximately 1.45 million acres of agricultural land under the Upper Chenab Canal and an additional 3.19 million acres under the Chenab Canal. The lowered water availability is expected to severely impact agriculture and livelihoods dependent on these river systems.

India has not responded to concerns raised by Pakistan and United Nations experts regarding this suspension, despite a December 16, 2026 deadline set by the UN for India to explain its actions. A UN report released in December 2025 warned that any disruption of the treaty might severely affect millions of people in Pakistan who rely on the Indus River system for drinking water, agriculture, and food security.

Hydrological data from December 2025 revealed an extraordinary reduction in the Chenab River flow, with measurements dropping well below historical minimums. Satellite imagery showed significant changes in reservoir surface area at Baglihar during this period, indicating alterations in water storage or flow. Pakistan formally sought explanations from India over this unusual water reduction, highlighting growing tensions over water-sharing and resource management under the treaty.

Obhan & Associates | English | AcademicThink | Jan. 23, 2026 | Regulation

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2026, effective from October 1, 2026, replacing previous regulations from 2015 and related directives. These New Regulations aim to simplify cross-border trade compliance through consolidation, delegation, and procedural clarity without introducing new prohibitions or thresholds. They reorganize how exporters, importers, authorized dealers, and regulators manage foreign trade operations.

Key provisions include a defined timeline for service exporters to submit Export Declaration Forms (EDF) within 30 days from the month-end of invoice issuance, with consolidated EDFs allowed for multiple exports within a month. Software exports are now expressly categorized under services, aligning their procedural requirements accordingly. Export proceeds must be realized and repatriated within 15 months of shipment, invoicing, or overseas warehouse sale, with extensions permissible by authorized dealers. Project exports follow contract payment terms and may have extended timelines. For invoicing in Indian Rupees, the realization period extends to 18 months.

For transactions up to Rs. 10 lakh, authorized dealers may close export and import data entries based on self-declarations without full documentary proof, facilitating ease for smaller operators. Quarterly bulk closures of low-value entries are now permitted. Import payments are aligned with contractual terms, and authorized dealers can grant extensions as needed. Advance remittances remain allowed; however, future remittances may require financial guarantees if prior advances are not settled within the contracted period.

The New Regulations explicitly permit set-off of export receivables against import payables, third-party payments, and reduction or non-realization of export proceeds based on authorized dealers’ assessments. For transactions up to Rs. 10 lakh, exporters’ declarations suffice for realisation adjustments. Merchanting Trade Transactions are now formally regulated, requiring inward and outward remittances within six months, direct payment flows with conditional third-party involvement, and active monitoring by authorized dealers.

EDPMS and IDPMS systems have been upgraded from reporting tools to active compliance mechanisms, with authorized dealers responsible for timely entries, follow-up, and closure of transactions, including powers to close entries when advances are not repatriated or imports do not materialize. The overall framework is designed to provide predictable, system-driven foreign trade oversight anchored in clear timelines, value thresholds, and dealer-level discretion.

Trilegal | English | AcademicThink | Jan. 23, 2026 | UndeterminedLegal Exposure

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) directed three liquor vendor associations in Maharashtra to cease cartelisation activities including price fixing, control over market entry, and collectively setting retail terms. Despite finding evidence of cartel conduct, CCI refrained from monetary penalties due to mitigating factors such as first-time offence and limited financial capacity.

CCI dismissed a complaint against Google Play Store by Liberty Infospace, ruling that Google’s conduct in terminating developer accounts was justifiable to protect platform integrity and did not constitute abuse of dominance. The decision underscored the need to assess dominant position abuse in market context rather than in isolation.

In a significant enforcement action, the CCI imposed the maximum penalty based on the global turnover of six companies involved in bid rigging in solid waste management tenders for Pune Municipal Corporation. This marked the first use of the 2024 Penalty Guidelines allowing penalty calculation on global turnover when relevant turnover is infeasible. The CCI rejected mitigating factors due to the severity of the collusive conduct.

The National Competition Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) largely upheld CCI’s finding that Meta and WhatsApp abused dominance by imposing unfair data-sharing terms in WhatsApp’s 2021 policy update. It upheld a penalty of INR 213.14 crore (~USD 23.6 million) but set aside a five-year ban on data sharing for advertising purposes, allowing other user consent remedies instead. Meta and WhatsApp have appealed to the Supreme Court.

NCLAT ruled that the CCI lacks jurisdiction over patent-related disputes, affirming its dismissal of a complaint against Vifor International regarding licensing and pricing of a patented pharmaceutical ingredient. The CCI has challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.

The Kerala High Court affirmed the CCI’s jurisdiction to adjudicate abuse of dominance claims in regulated sectors such as broadcasting. The court held that the Competition Act and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act operate concurrently, with CCI’s jurisdiction applicable for competition issues distinct from sectoral regulatory matters.