The Shadow War: Examining Pakistan’s Legal Recourse Against India’s Transnational Killings

Since Narendra Modi assumed office for the second time in 2019, India has escalated the notorious practice of transnational killings as part of a broader strategy to eliminate individuals arbitrarily labelled as terrorists residing abroad. In 2019, India amended its antiterrorism law, granting itself the unilateral authority to designate individuals and organisations as terrorists, many of whom have been subsequently targeted or killed through operations conducted by its foreign intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Indian intelligence operatives have justified these extraterritorial actions as a response to the 2019 Pulwama Attacks, framing them as preemptive strikes against foreign-based terrorists to advance their self-proclaimed national security interests.
Since 2020, India has reportedly been involved in 20 extraterritorial killings within Pakistan’s sovereign territory. These killings were not executed directly by Indian nationals but rather through systematic “murder-for-hire” strategies. Typically, UAE-based businessmen acted as intermediaries for RAW agents, shielding them from direct liability. These intermediaries further engaged separate teams for tasks like target surveillance, payment transfers, etc. The actual killings were often executed by local Pakistani criminals or economically disadvantaged individuals. This insight aims to examine India’s transnational killings in Pakistan, establish their illegality under international law, and explore the legal recourse available to Pakistan.
Until 2023, Pakistan largely remained silent on India’s alleged extraterritorial killings within its territory. However, following 2023, Pakistan directly implicated India, backing its claims with substantial evidence in two dossiers. These dossiers linked the killings of Muhammad Riaz on 8 September 2023 and Shahid Latif on 11 October 2023 to Indian agents Yogesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar Anand. India’s response to these has been inconsistent. Initially, it categorically denied Pakistan’s claims, yet later, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh publicly acknowledged India’s involvement in extraterritorial killings in Pakistan. Pakistan strongly condemned these remarks as a provocative admission of culpability.

India’s transnational killings have not been confined to Pakistan but have also extended into Western nations. In Canada, senior Indian officials were implicated in the June 2023 assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Khalistani Sikh activist. This led Canada to expel six Indian diplomats, including the Indian High Commissioner.
Similarly, in the United States (US), an Indian government employee allegedly attempted to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, another Sikh activist. However, the attempt was foiled by the US authorities, raising concerns about potential involvement of the Indian government.
India’s transnational actions in Pakistan constitute a blatant violation of international law. The United Nations (UN) Charter explicitly prohibits member states from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any other state. India’s extraterritorial killings of Pakistani citizens on Pakistani soil breach this fundamental principle of the UN Charter.
Furthermore, these actions also violate the right to life and fair trial of Pakistani citizens under various human rights treaties, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR applies extraterritorially, meaning its provisions extend to a state’s conduct abroad, even when dealing with foreign nationals. As a party to the ICCPR, India must uphold these rights, and its failure allows Pakistan to seek redress through the UN treaty bodies like the Human Rights Committee.
Given these illegalities, Pakistan has several legal options, broadly categorised into domestic and international domains. Domestically, Pakistan’s first step should be to prosecute Pakistan-based individuals involved in these killings, ensuring fair and timely trials. Regardless of the trial outcomes, the investigations conducted during these proceedings are crucial for gathering substantive evidence to establish the chain of command linking the perpetrators in Pakistan to India’s state apparatus. These trials and investigative findings should serve a dual purpose—securing convictions while exposing India as a rogue actor that disregards international norms and accountability.
Similar investigations are underway in Canada and the US concerning recent Indian transnational assassinations. Pakistan could extend them an invitation for intelligence and law enforcement cooperation, emphasising the shared objective of addressing India’s extraterritorial actions. While Canada and the US may not readily accept such an offer, exploring this avenue could provide insight into how their authorities handle the matter. Such collaboration, if successful, could help align Pakistan with Western nations in holding India accountable for violating state sovereignty.
Once convictions are secured and links to Indian state actors are established, Pakistan may initiate government-to-government communication with India, expressing its concerns and inviting cooperation. As part of this effort, Pakistan could formally request the custody of those responsible for transnational killings on its soil. While India is almost sure to deny the request, doing so would demonstrate Pakistan’s bona fide, strengthen its international credibility, and lay the groundwork for further international actions.
Internationally, Pakistan could pursue legal action against India at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). ICJ jurisdiction can be invoked primarily through compulsory or special agreements. While a special agreement between Pakistan and India is highly unlikely, both states have recognised the court’s compulsory jurisdiction via declarations, albeit with reservations excluding national security matters.
Therefore, Pakistan may carefully frame its case to focus on issues such as state sovereignty, the prohibition of using force, and international human rights law violations, steering clear of national security concerns. Pakistan could request reparations for India’s breaches as part of its relief. While India is likely to challenge the ICJ jurisdiction, Article 36(6) of the ICJ Statute empowers the court to adjudicate on its jurisdiction, offering Pakistan an avenue to contest India’s objections.
Furthermore, Pakistan’s election as a non-permanent UN Security Council (UNSC) member for 2025–2026 presents a unique opportunity to address India’s extra-territorial killings. Unlike India, which lacks UNSC membership during this period, Pakistan can leverage its position to request the inclusion of ‘India’s transnational killings’ as a specific agenda item for UNSC discussion. If framed effectively, this issue could garner significant support from UNSC members, including the US, given its concerns following the Pannun incident.
The UN Charter empowers the UNSC to determine whether India’s actions threaten international peace and security, potentially opening the door for non-military sanctions or other measures. If UNSC efforts stall due to a veto, Pakistan could turn to the General Assembly to sustain diplomatic pressure and international scrutiny on India.
India’s transnational killings stand as a grave violation of international law, breaching state sovereignty, the prohibition on use of force, and fundamental human rights. A transparent and credible domestic trial process is essential to establish links to Indian state actors and strengthening Pakistan’s legal case. This must be complemented by strategic engagement with Western nations and proactive diplomacy. Decisive actions will safeguard Pakistan’s sovereignty and deter future violations by other states.