The notion that ‘certain values and ideals’ embedded in the Constitution should be preserved and not destroyed by any process of constitutional amendment has thus been upheld in the judicial process, and the judiciary has respected its obligation to uphold the values of the Indian Constitution.

IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

When, however, there arises a 'conflict of obligations' between the two systemic issues, national judiciaries and legislatures have sought to harmonise instead of according preference to one issue over the other. This is evidenced in the observation made by Supreme Court Justice H.R. Khanna in his famous minority opinion in A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla case 4, wherein he stated:
“Equally well established is the rule of construction that if there be a conflict between the municipal law on one side and the international law or the provisions of any treaty obligations on the other, the courts would give effect to municipal law. If however, two construction of the municipal law are possible, the courts should lean in favour of adopting such construction as would make the provisions of the municipal law to be in harmony with the international on treaty obligations.”
Article 51 (1) (c) of the Indian Constitution directs the state to 'foster respect for international law and treaty obligations'. Article 253 vests the Parliament with the power to enact laws to implement treaties ratified by India. Further, under Entry 14 of list I of the Seventh Schedule, the Central Government has exclusive authority to enter into and implement treaties, conventions, and agreements with foreign countries.

The Supreme Court has, however, favoured application of the provisions and principles of international law in the absence of legislative incorporation.

To be continued…