New Delhi, June 1: Foreign minister Sushma Swaraj today signalled a rethink on India's decision not to approach the International Court of Justice over allegations that Pakistani troops tortured Kargil prisoner Captain Saurabh Kalia whose body was found mutilated.

But the suggestion of a different stance, following online and television criticism of the Narendra Modi government for an apparent refusal to honour a pre-election promise, may be hard to implement because of the nature of India's relationship with the ICJ, officials have warned.

"We will go to the international court if the Supreme Court allows it," Sushma said on Monday, calling Kalia's killing an "exceptional circumstance".

Sushma said the Modi government would change its affidavit in the Supreme Court, where the current administration and its predecessor under Manmohan Singh had argued that India could not approach the ICJ seeking action against Pakistan.

Modi and the BJP had, ahead of last year's general election, pointed to the then government's stand to paint the UPA as insensitive to the concerns of war martyrs and their families. Congress spokesperson Rajeev Gowda today accused the Modi government of "hypocrisy".

But senior officials - both then and now - have argued that behind the political shadowboxing lie geopolitical complexities that make it virtually impossible for India to approach the ICJ, and that this can't be resolved just by political will.

After the 1971 war with Pakistan, when India played a critical role in the creation of Bangladesh, Islamabad had threatened to take New Delhi to the ICJ.

On September 15, 1974, then foreign minister Swaran Singh submitted a declaration to the ICJ redefining how India would from then on engage with the international court at The Hague.

In the declaration, Singh specified that India would recognise the "jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice except in 12 situations", one of which is "disputes with the government or any state which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth of Nations".

India has used this declaration on multiple occasions since then to extricate itself from potentially messy arbitrations and cases at the ICJ, often moved by Pakistan.

In September 1999, Pakistan lodged a case with the ICJ asking it to impose penalties on India for shooting down a Pakistani naval plane in August, just a month after the Kargil war. India says the plane entered its airspace without authorisation.

India argued before the court that it had no jurisdiction over the case because of the "Commonwealth reservation" - the exemption it had made in its 1974 declaration to the ICJ.

The 16-judge court, after detailed hearings, concluded in India's favour by 14 votes to 2. It accepted the argument that its mandate did not extend over India in cases involving other Commonwealth nations.

India will need to alter its 1974 declaration to the ICJ to be able to pursue the Kalia case at The Hague. But this, officials point out, would instantly expose India to multiple counter-charges from Pakistan.