1982 (1) TMI 213 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: International Obligations Unenforceable in India Without Legislation, No SC Appeal Granted.

The court dismissed the appeal, determining that international obligations under the Gleneagles Accord and United Nations membership are not enforceable ... Enforceability of treaty obligations in municipal courts - Distinction between customary international law and treaty obligations - Parliamentary enactment required to give treaties domestic effect - Directive principles (Article 51) non-justiciable - Mandamus to compel State to perform treaty obligationsEnforceability of treaty obligations in municipal courts - Parliamentary enactment required to give treaties domestic effect - Distinction between customary international law and treaty obligations - Directive principles (Article 51) non-justiciable - Whether obligations of the Government of India under the Gleneagles Accord and obligations arising from United Nations membership are enforceable in Indian courts at the instance of private citizens or associations. - HELD THAT: - The court held that obligations under the Gleneagles Accord and obligations attaching to United Nations membership cannot be enforced by Indian courts by private citizens or associations unless those obligations have been incorporated into domestic law by appropriate legislation. Article 51, being a directive principle in Part IV, is not justiciable and cannot be the basis for judicial compulsion of executive compliance. The court accepted the established distinction that customary international law may be recognised by domestic courts, but treaty obligations do not operate internally unless transformed into municipal law by Parliament; English authority and authoritative texts underscore that treaties require enabling legislation to have internal effect. Indian decisions, including the reasoning approved in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin and other High Court authorities, support the proposition that international commitments ignite legislative action but do not themselves create enforceable rights in domestic courts. Applying these principles, the petition seeking mandamus to direct the Government to deny entry to or expel the named sportsmen was not maintainable in the absence of domestic legislative enactment giving the treaty obligations internal effect. [Paras 10, 16, 17, 18]The obligations under the Gleneagles Accord and UN membership are not enforceable in Indian courts by private parties unless enacted into domestic law; the writ seeking mandamus on that basis fails.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed on the ground that treaty obligations and UN-related obligations not incorporated into domestic law are not justiciable by private parties; application for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the court to examine the validity of the Government of India's actions.2. Applicability and enforceability of international treaties and obligations within Indian municipal law.3. Obligations under the Gleneagles Accord and United Nations membership.4. Legislative action required to enforce international obligations in India.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Examine the Validity of Government Actions:The appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by a single judge, who held that the Government of India's action of allowing two English cricket players, who had links with South Africa, to visit India was an act of State. Consequently, the court had no jurisdiction to examine its validity or grant the relief sought. The appellant, Civil Rights Vigilance Committee, contested this decision, arguing that the Government of India's actions violated its obligations under international treaties.2. Applicability and Enforceability of International Treaties and Obligations within Indian Municipal Law:The appellant argued that the obligations under the Gleneagles Accord and the United Nations should be enforceable by Indian courts. However, the court examined the constitutional provisions and found that treaties entered into by the Government of India do not automatically become part of Indian municipal law unless incorporated through legislation. Articles 245(1), Entry 14 in List-I of Schedule VII, and Article 253 of the Constitution empower Parliament to make laws for implementing treaties. Article 51 of the Constitution, though directive, is not enforceable by courts as per Article 37.3. Obligations under the Gleneagles Accord and United Nations Membership:The appellant contended that the Government of India's obligations under the Gleneagles Accord and its United Nations membership should prevent Boycott and Cook from entering India. However, the court held that these obligations, being part of international treaties, do not form part of municipal law unless explicitly made so by legislative action. The court cited authoritative texts and previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, to support this view.4. Legislative Action Required to Enforce International Obligations in India:The court emphasized that international treaties and obligations require enabling legislation to be enforceable within Indian municipal law. The court referred to decisions from the Rajasthan High Court and Kerala High Court, which held that treaties do not form part of the law of the land unless incorporated by legislation. The Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin also affirmed that international covenants do not automatically become enforceable parts of Indian law without legislative action.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Government of India's obligations under the Gleneagles Accord and United Nations membership cannot be enforced by Indian courts at the instance of citizens or associations unless incorporated into Indian law through appropriate legislation. The court also declined to grant a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin and did not raise any substantial question of law of general importance.