‘Studying developments’: India’s first reaction to US court order

The US Supreme Court order is especially consequential for India, as the US, earlier this month, agreed to sign an agreement under which India agreed to purchase $500 billion worth of US products, and Washington agreed to lower tariffs on India to 18% from 50%. However, the trade agreement has not been officially signed yet. Market access-related concessions agreed under the trade deal would only be given by the Indian side when the legal agreement is signed, Indian government officials said.

Hours after the Supreme Court ruling, Trump announced a 10% global tariff, later increasing it to 15% on almost all imports to the US under a rarely-used provision known as Section 122. Alongside that, two other provisions – Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act – that are already in use and have firmer legal grounding will remain in place, the White House clarified after the SC ruling. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 on national-security grounds. These have already been deployed in the case of steel, aluminium, semiconductors and other products—and the Trump administration is looking to impose even more.

Former trade officer and founder of Delhi-based think tank GTRI, Ajay Srivastava said that the removal of the reciprocal tariffs will free about 55% of India’s exports to the United States from the 25% duty (including the 18% rate yet to be implemented under the interim framework announced in the February 6 joint statement), leaving these exports subject only to standard MFN tariffs.

“On the remaining exports, (i) Section 232 tariffs will continue — 50% on steel and aluminium and 25% on certain auto components — while (ii) products accounting for roughly 40% of export value, including smartphones, petroleum products and medicines, will remain exempt from U.S. tariffs,” Srivastava said.

The US-India Joint Statement dated Feb 6, 2026, said: “In the event of any changes to the agreed upon tariffs of either country, the United States and India agree that the other country may modify its commitments”.

As US tariffs have changed, Srivastava said, India should use this clause to either opt out of the trade deal or delay negotiations or seek fresh terms so the trade deal looks equitable.

“The ruling should prompt India to re-examine its trade deal with the United States. After offering concessions — including reducing MFN tariffs, aligning economic policies with U.S. interests, easing regulations affecting U.S. goods, and signalling large purchases of U.S. products — India was to receive an 18% reciprocal tariff rate. Now, even without a trade deal, India, like other countries, faces a 15% tariff on most goods, rendering the agreement being negotiated useless,” Srivastava said.

Kurt M. Campbell, Chairman and Co-Founder of The Asia Group, said:” The truth is that the Trump administration anticipated these steps and was already exploring various executive authorities that can accomplish the same goals, and continue to make it clear that exports continuing at the same levels from other countries in the United States are unacceptable”.

“Congress has already signalled its discomfort with the tariff policies. If anything, I believe that key players on Capitol Hill, both some Republicans and the entirety of the Democratic Party, will reaffirm this decision, and it will be hard to pass any legislation that in some way reconstitutes these authorities,” Campbell said.