In an era characterised by a rise in cross-border litigation, India’s stance on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (REFJ) reveals a complex contradiction. Although India’s REFJ regime appears to advocate a pro-enforcement stance, the inclusion of révision au fond – the practice of assessing foreign judgments based on their substantive merits – introduces considerable tension in the realm of cross-border dispute resolution. This paper explores the implications of India’s commitment to conducting merits review as a self-imposed obstacle to fostering international judicial collaboration. This paper elucidates how this practice not only complicates the enforcement of foreign judgments within India but also hinders the recognition of Indian judgments abroad, especially in those countries that require reciprocity for such purposes such as Japan, South Korea, Germany and China. Through a comparative analysis of national laws and multilateral instruments, this paper illustrates how India’s statutory révision au fond requirement poses reciprocal challenges for the enforcement of Indian judgments abroad, advocating a critical re-evaluation of India’s REFJ framework to conform with emerging international judicial cooperation standards.