India disputed Pakistan's standing to address rule-of-law principles at the United Nations, arguing that a country in which the military exercises preponderant influence over civilian governance is not positioned to hold others to such standards.
During a Right of Reply session at the UN General Assembly's Sixth Committee on Friday, where the agenda addressed the rule of law at national and international levels, India's delegation contended that Pakistan was not positioned to offer guidance on legal governance, citing what it described as the military's dominant role over civilian authority in that country.
Formal allegations put forward by India against Pakistan covered the weakening of judicial independence, the narrowing of political competition, and the breach of human rights obligations.
Responding to a statement made by Pakistan's representative in the Sixth Committee debate, India's Counsellor R. Mythili — attached to the country's Permanent Mission to the UN — contended that a state whose military operates outside judicial oversight is not well-placed to advocate for rule-of-law principles in that forum. She characterised Pakistan's 26th Constitutional Amendment as a measure that had undermined the independence of its courts.
Passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment reshaped how Pakistan's judiciary is organised and how it operates. Critics have argued that the measure undermines both legal protections for individuals and the foundational principles of the rule of law.
Mythili pointed to the imprisonment of former prime minister Imran Khan as part of a broader pattern, noting that no elected administration in the country has been allowed to run its full course. She further stated that a former head of government sits in custody without a transparent legal basis and has been kept from medical attention despite the country's own Supreme Court having ordered otherwise — conditions that, in her characterisation, fall outside what any functioning rule-of-law framework would permit.
She additionally alleged that Pakistan had barred a major political party from taking part in elections, subjected civilians to trial in military courts, placed restrictions on Supreme Court judges, and suppressed human rights, directly urging her Pakistani counterpart to heed the voices of the country's own people.
In a follow-up statement, Mythili characterised Pakistan's accusations as a deflection strategy designed to draw scrutiny away from that country's own standing on minority rights and press freedom. Responding to Pakistan's allegations about the treatment of religious minorities in India, she characterised those claims as a deflection from Pakistan's own record on minority communities — a record she noted was reflected in the steady decline of minority populations as a share of the country's total since its founding.
Mythili also drew attention to Pakistan's Foreign Media Facilitation Guidelines — a set of rules requiring journalists to obtain a no-objection certificate before working outside Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi — and posed a question about what press freedom could look like under such conditions. She contended that those holding authority carry an obligation under the rule of law toward the populations they govern, a commitment she argued Pakistan has not consistently upheld.
Mythili stated that any preoccupation with the other country ran in one direction only, and that direction was not from India's side. Backing Operation Sindoor — the strikes India launched in May 2025 against what it characterised as terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack — she described the action as measured and narrowly scoped rather than sweeping, and noted that if the opposing side chose to present damaged airfields and destroyed hangars as proof of their own success, they were at liberty to do so.
Mythili argued that Pakistani delegates, rather than addressing the pledges their government had made to its own population, were instead reciting what she described as a list of unverified accusations against India — commitments she maintained had never been pursued in good faith.
