In the relationship between international law and national law, the normative framework enshrined in the Indian Constitution is of formal dualism. Thus, international law does not become part of the Indian legal regime until it goes through a process of transformation i.e. the parliament passing a legislation to implement international law. However, the Supreme Court of India has moved away from this formal dualism to the monist tradition of incorporating international law in the domestic legal regime provided the international law is not inconsistent with domestic law. This paper traces this journey. It argues that while the Supreme Court has indeed moved towards the doctrine of incorporation, this shift is riddled with several inconsistencies and incoherence. While judicial incorporation of international law may not be a bad thing, the court needs to demonstrate greater analytical rigour in dealing with international law, both treaty law and binding customary norms.

在国际法与国内法的关系上，印度宪法所载的规范框架是形式上的二元论。因此，国际法在经历转型过程（即议会通过立法以实施国际法）之前不会成为印度法律制度的一部分。然而，印度最高法院已经从这种形式上的二元论转向将国际法纳入国内法律制度的一元传统，只要国际法与国内法不矛盾。本文追溯了这一旅程。它争辩说，虽然最高法院确实已经转向了合并原则，但这种转变充满了一些不一致和不连贯的地方。虽然国际法的司法纳入可能不是一件坏事，