Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Supreme Court of India and International Law: A Topsy-Turvy Journey from Dualism to Monism

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Union of India v Agricas Llp, Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 496–509 OF 2020.

  2. Article 38(1) of the ICJ provides: “The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

    international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

    international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

    the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

    subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law”.

  3. See also Article 37 of Part IV of the Constitution of India, which states: “Application of the principles contained in this part—The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws”. Further Article 38 of the Indian Constitution signifying the importance of directive principles of State policy’, provides: “The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life”.

  4. The seventh schedule of the Indian Constitution allocates powers and functions between the Union and the States. In addition to the Union list, the seventh schedule contains two more lists - the State List (containing items on which the state legislatures can legislate) and the Concurrent List (containing items on which both the parliament and the state legislatures can legislate).

  5. See Ram Javaya Kapur v State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549 where the Supreme Court held that the Executive can exercise power over matters in the Union List even in the absence of legislation as long as the Executive does not violate any law.

  6. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v Union of India (1970) 3 SCC 400.

  7. Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin AIR 1980 SC 470.

  8. See Sambhavana v. University of Delhi (2013) 14 SCC 781 where the court referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to interpret Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. See also Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India 7 SCC 761 (2016) where the SCI referred to the same convention to address a case of discrimination against a person with a disability. See also Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 5 SCC 481 (2020); Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd 2 SCC 166 (2021); Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1.

  9. Centre For Environment Law, World Wide Fund India vs. Union of India and Others 8 SCC 234 (2013) where the court referred to several environmental conventions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. See also Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India 15 SCC 401 (2019); Sridevi Datla v. Union of India 2021 SCC Online SC 235.

  10. GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO (2015) 11 SCC 734.

  11. Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (2001) 4 SCC 593; State of Punjab and Anr. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and Anr (2004) 11 SCC 26; Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. G.M. Exports and Ors (2016) 1 SCC 91.

  12. M/S. Entertainment Network vs. M/S. Super Cassette Industries (2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5114 OF 2005.

  13. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs. Union of India (1970) 3 SCC 400.

  14. V/O Tractor Export, Moscow vs. M/S. Tarapore & Company (1969) 1 1970 SCR (3) 53.

  15. Jolly George Verghese & Anr vs. The Bank of Cochin AIR 1980 SC 470.

  16. Article 11 of the ICCPR provides: “No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation”.

  17. State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors (2004) Appeal (civil) 1532 of 1993.

  18. ibid.

  19. See also Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India and others 4 SCC 516 (2001), when construing Sect. 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962, the SCI referred to the Extradition Treaty and construed Sect. 21 in the light of the international position. See also Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A. K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759.

  20. Gramophone Company of India Ltd vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey 1984 AIR SC 667.

  21. ibid.

  22. Vishaka & Others vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors (1997) See also People’s Union Of Civil Liberties … vs. Union of India And Anr AIR 1997 SC 3011).

  23. ibid.

  24. Ibid. See also Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit … vs. State Of Orissa And Ors, (1993) SCR (2) 581.

  25. See also Apparel Export Promotion Council v A.K. Chopra, (1999) AIR 1999 SC 625; Kuldip Nayar v Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 3127.

  26. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors (2012) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995.

  27. National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India & Ors (2014) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 604 of 2013.

  28. ibid.

  29. Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 583 of 2003.

  30. ibid.

  31. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) … vs. Union Of India And Ors. (2017) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012.

  32. ibid.

  33. ibid.

  34. ibid.

  35. Shayara Bano v. Union of India Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016.

  36. Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2009) 9 SCC 551.

  37. ibid.

  38. Union Of India vs. Agricas Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 496–509 of 2020.

  39. QR is a measure that limits the quantity of products that can be imported or exported.

  40. Sect. 3(2) of the FTDR Act provides: “The Central Government may also, by Order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases or in specified classes of cases and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the Order, the import or export of goods or services or technology”.

  41. Section 9 A of the FTDR provides: “Power of Central Government to impose quantitative restrictions—(1) If the Central Government, after conducting such enquiry as it deems fit, is satisfied that any goods are imported into India in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to domestic industry, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, impose such quantitative restrictions on the import of such goods as it may deem fit”.

  42. Article XI.2(c)(ii) of GATT allows a country to impose QRs “to remove a temporary surplus of the like domestic product, or, if there is no substantial domestic production of the like product, of a domestic product for which the imported product can be directly substituted, by making the surplus available to certain groups of domestic consumers free of charge or at prices below the current market level”.

  43. A peremptory norm is a fundamental principle of international law which are accepted as such by States and from which no derogation is possible.

  44. Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit … vs. State Of Orissa And Ors, (1993) SCR (2) 581.

  45. DK Basu v State of Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610.

  46. Also see Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar And Another 1983 4 SCC 141.

  47. MV Elizabeth v Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd, Goa AIR 1993 SC 1014.

  48. ibid.

  49. ibid.

  50. ibid.

  51. Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. … vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr Appeal (Civil) 5665 of 2002.

  52. ibid.

  53. ibid.

  54. Ibid. See also MV Al Quamar v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (2000) 8 SCC 278.

  55. G.Sundarrajan vs. Union Of India & Ors (2013) Civil Appeal No. 4440 of 2013.

  56. Dhanwanti Joshi vs. Madhav Unde (1998) 1 SCC 12.

  57. Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Hague XXVIII. See also HCCH, Child Abduction Section, https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/child-abduction,

  58. Article 16 of the Hague Convention provides: “After receiving notice of a wrongful removal or retention of a child in the sense of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice”.

  59. India currently has a bill on this issue - The Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Bill, 2016 https://wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/Draft_Implemnting_Legislation_Hague_Convention_0.pdf.

  60. Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2017) Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 2017.

  61. Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra (2020) SCC Online SC 887.

  62. Mohamad Salimullah v Union of India (2020) Interlocutory Application No. 38,048 of 2021.

  63. Halliburton Offshore Services … vs. Principal Officer Of Mercantile (2017) Civil Appeal No. 5428 of 2017.

  64. ibid.

  65. Ram Jethmalani & Ors vs. Union Of India & Ors (2011) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 176 of 2009.

  66. ibid.

  67. PUCL v India AIR 1997 SC 568.

  68. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India & Ors AIR 1996 SC 2715.

  69. ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207.

  70. See Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69, para 146; Chung Chi Cheung v. R. [1939] AC 160, 168; 9 AD, p. 264.

  71. ILC Draft Conclusions of customary international law, [2018], Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol II, Part II. See also North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3, at p. 44, para. 77; Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 99, at pp. 122–123, para. 55.

  72. Some scholars contest the argument that sustainable development has attained customary status – see Lowe (1999). On the other hand, some argue that sustainable development, as an objective, constitutes a principle of customary law – see Barral (2012).

  73. Natoniewski v. Germany (2010) Winicjusz N. v. Republika Federalna Niemiec – Federalny Urząd Kanclerski w Berlinie, case no. CSK 465/09.

  74. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. Aalok Jagga (2020) 15 SCC 784.

  75. Vellore Citizens Welfare Fourm vs. Union Of India & Ors, AIR 1996 SC 2715.

  76. Research Foundation For Science v. Union Of India (2005) 10 SCC 510.

  77. A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Others (1999), 2 SCC 718.

  78. Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 523. See also Lal Bahadur v. State of U.P, (2018) 15 SCC 407.

  79. Compare this with India’s argument before the Kishanganga arbitration where India challenged Pakistan’s position that the precautionary principle is part of CIL – see Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan/India) (Partial Award) The Permanent Court of Arbitration 18 February 2013, para 227.

  80. A (FC) and Others (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56.

  81. R. v. Hape 2007 SCC 26.

  82. Mohamad Salimullah v Union of India, Interlocutory Application No. 38,048 of 2021.

  83. Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol - https://www.unhcr.org/4d9486929.pdf.

  84. Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021.

  85. ibid.

References

  • Al Imran, H. 2022. Rohingya boat refugees at Bay of Bengal and Obligations of the South East Asian States under Soft law. Liverpool Law Review 43 (1): 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahdi, Reem. 2002. Globalization of Judgment: Transjudicialism and the Five Faces of International Law in Domestic Courts. George Washington International Law Review 34: 555–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barral, V. 2012. Sustainable development in international law: Nature * and operation of an evolutive legal norm. European Journal of International Law 23 (2): 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Michael A. 2020. The Plight of the Rohingya: Genocide Allegations and Provisional Measures in The Gambia v Myanmar at the International Court of Justice. Melbourne Journal of International Law 21 (2): 428–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, Gautam. 2021. The Fear of Executive Courts. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-fear-of-executive-courts/article25735185.ece.

  • Brandes, Tamar Hostovsky. 2019. International law in domestic courts in an era of populism, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 575-596

  • International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 575–596.

  • Brownlie, Ian. 2012. ). Brownlie’s principles of public international law (. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, Armin. 2008. Pluralism, Direct Effect, and the Ultimate Say: On the Relationship Between International and Domestic Constitutional Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law 6 (3–4): 397–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, Anthony. 2012. For an Enhanced Role in Jus Cogens. In ‘Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law’ ed. Anthony Cassese: Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, A. 2017. India and international law: Formal dualism, functional monism. Indian Journal of International Law 57 (1–2): 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chimni, B. S. 2019. ‘India’; In The Oxford Handbook of International law in Asia and the Pacific, ed. Simon Chesterman, Hisashi Owada and Ben Saul, 551–576. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Davíð Þór Björgvinsson. 2015. The intersection of international law and domestic law: A theoretical and practical analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Goodwin-Gill, G. S. and Jane McAdam 1996. The refugee in international law. 2nd ed. Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

  • Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. 2014. The International Law of Refugee Protection. In The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, eds. E. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, G. Loescher, K. Long, and Sigona, 39–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Mitali. 2020. Is The Global Reputation Of India’s Supreme Court In Decline?. https://www.article-14.com/post/is-the-global-reputation-of-india-s-supreme-court-in-decline.

  • Hegde, V. G. 2010. Indian Courts and International Law. Leiden Journal of International Law 23 (1): 23–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegde, V. G. 2013. International Law in the Courts of India. Asian Yearbook of International Law 19: 63–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindu, Bureau. 2022. Rohingya a threat to security, says BJP. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mha-in-the-right-on-rohingya-resettlement-plan-says-bjp-after-kerfuffle/article65779640.ece.

  • Khaitan, Tarunabh. 2020. Killing a Constitution with a Thousand Cuts: Executive Aggrandizement and Party-state Fusion in India. Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 14(1), 49–95..

  • Krieger, Heike. 2019. Populist Governments and International Law. European Journal of International Law 30 (3): 971–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, Vaughan. 1999. Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments. In ‘International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Challenges’ ed. Alan Boyle and David Freestone. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht, Elihu, and Daniel. Bethlemen. 2003. ‘The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement: Opinion’ In ‘Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection’ ed. Erika Feller, Volker Türk, and Frances Nicholson. 107–155: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lambert, Helene. 2021. Customary Refugee Law. In ‘The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law’ ed. Cathryn Costello, Michelle Foster, and Jane McAdam, 240–255. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper, Andre. 2011. National courts and the international rule of law. Oxford University Press.

  • Nollkaemper, Andre. 2014. The Duality of Direct Effect of International Law. European Journal of International Law 25 (1): 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper, Andre, August Reinisch, et al eds. 2018. International Law in Domestic Courts: A Casebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Casebook, A. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Oxford Reports on International Law in Domestic Courts. 2021. https://opil.ouplaw.com/page/212.

  • Rajamani, Lavanya. 2016. ‘International Law and the Constitutional Schema’; In The Oxford Handbook of The Indian Constitution, ed. Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, 143–164. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Ryngaert, C. M. J., and D. W. Hora Siccama. 2018. Ascertaining customary international law: An inquiry into the methods used by domestic courts. Netherlands International Law Review 65 (1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mani, V. S. 1995. Effectuation of International Law in the Municipal Legal Order: The Law and Practice in India, Asian Yearbook of International Law. (5), 145–174.

  • Sandholtz, Wayne. 2015. How Domestic Courts Use International Law. Fordham International Law Journal 38 (2): 595–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sourgens, F. G. 2020. The Precaution Presumption. European Journal of International Law 31 (4): 1277–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanklecha, Jay Manoj. 2021. Examining the Supreme Court’s approach to Rohingya deportation. https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/examining-the-supreme-court-s-approach-to-rohingya-deportation-101618324727697.html.

  • Shany, Yuval. 2005. How Supreme Is the Supreme Law of the Land? Comparative Analysis of the Influence of International Human Right Treaties upon the Interpretation of Constitutional Texts by Domestic Courts. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 31 (2): 341–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloss, David. 2011. Domestic Application of Treaties. http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/635.

  • Verdier, Pierre, and Mila Hughes, Versteeg. 2015. International Law in National Legal Systems: An Empirical Investigation. American Journal of International Law 109 (3): 514–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ert, Gib. 2019. The Domestic Application of International Law in Canada. In ‘The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law’, ed. Curtis A. Bradley, 501–519. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor and Vice Dean (Continuing Education), Jindal Global Law School, O P Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India

    Prabhash Ranjan

Authors
  1. Prabhash Ranjan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prabhash Ranjan.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ranjan, P. The Supreme Court of India and International Law: A Topsy-Turvy Journey from Dualism to Monism. Liverpool Law Rev 43, 571–595 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-022-09314-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-022-09314-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation