1982 (1) TMI 213 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

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.