Integrity Score 240
No Records Found
No Records Found
Implementation If International Law For Human Rights continues…
In Maganbhai Ishwarbhi Patel v. Union of India5the Supreme Court held:
In other words, if the rights guaranteed by a Treaty are supplementary or similar to those contained in the Indian Constitution and do not in any way impinge or restrict them, no specific legislation is warranted to implement the obligations. The crime of Genocide has now been accepted by the Government's Union Home Ministry vide answers to Rajya Sabha questions, as part of Indian Penal Code. India thus has favoured a consideration of domestic law, that is in keeping with the state’s obligations under an international treaty or convention to which it is a party, especially is cases where the legislation is enacted during or after ratification or entry into force of the international treaty.
In Gramophone Company of India Ltd v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, the Apex Court held that while international provisions were construed to have been incorporated within municipal law in the absence of contradiction, in case of conflict ‘the sovereignty and the integrity of the Republic and the supremacy of the constituted legislatures in making the laws may not be subjected to external rules except to the extent legitimately accepted by the constituted legislatures themselves.’
In Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin,8 the Supreme Court of India went further than Gramophone and held that while primacy would have to be accorded to national law, “it is a principle generally recognised in national legal system that, in event of doubt, the national rule is to be interpreted in accordance with the State's international obligations.”
In the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of domestic law provisions, reliance could be placed on international law as well as international norms that were not in contravention of any existing domestic law and the Constitution.
To be continued…