New Delhi: India on Friday (July 31) sidestepped Amnesty International’s allegations that it was breaching its obligations under the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions by permitting weapons-related exports to Israel despite mounting evidence of how they could be used, with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) instead responding that it has a “robust legal and regulatory framework” governing exports of strategic and dual-use items.Responding to a media query at the bi-weekly media briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said: “India has a robust legal and regulatory framework on strategic trade controls and carries out its export of dual-use items and technologies to various countries in accordance with our national laws and consistent with our international obligations.”Jaiswal, however, did not directly address Amnesty’s pointed charges that India was continuing to permit exports despite “clear and public warnings” that the weapons and military components could contribute to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Gaza, or its contention that New Delhi was thereby failing to meet its obligations under the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions.The brief response came a day after Amnesty released a report alleging that India had become “a significant actor in the supply chains enabling Israel’s military operations” in Gaza through exports of weapons, ammunition, military components and dual-use items.In the 42-page report, Amnesty said it had identified 2,596 shipments of small arms, ammunition and military vehicle components exported from India to Israel between October 7, 2023 and November 30, 2025. It argued that the transfers continued despite mounting international legal warnings over Israel’s conduct in Gaza and urged New Delhi to halt all arms-related transfers to Israel.Amnesty’s report named nine Indian companies that it alleged exported weapons, ammunition, military parts or dual-use items to Israel after the outbreak of the Gaza war, including three defence public sector undertakings.The international human rights advocacy group had also argued that India’s own export controls regime places responsibility for licensing such exports squarely on the government.It noted that defence items fall under the restricted SCOMET (Special Chemicals, Organisms, Materials, Equipment and Technologies) list administered by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and that export licence applications are examined by an inter-ministerial working group with representatives from the ministries of external affairs, defence and home affairs before approval.According to Amnesty, the SCOMET export guidelines require authorities to assess the credentials of the end user, the credibility of end-use declarations and whether a proposed export would be consistent with India’s obligations under international treaties before granting a licence.It argued that these provisions should have required authorities to take into account India’s obligations under the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions while considering exports to Israel.“India does not have a structured legal framework governing the defence industry and weapons transfer,” the report stated at the opening of its chapter on national law. Regulation of arms manufacture, licensing, export and import, it recorded, is “spread across multiple laws, including the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951 (IDRA), the Arms Act 1959, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 and the Customs Act 1962, along with their rules and multiple executive notifications.”Amnesty asserted in the report that the role of multiple agencies “fragments decision-making and dilutes accountability with no single law or authority assuming clear responsibility”. It went on to identify what it called a common defect running through every one of those statutes, namely that “none of them requires assessment of the human rights impact of the arms being manufactured or exported”.