Supreme Court of India Dismisses Writ Petition on Arms Export to Israel

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a writ petition filed by former civil servants, scholars, activists, and experts regarding arms export to Israel during the Gaza conflict. The petitioners sought directions from the Union Government to cancel existing licenses and stop granting new ones to companies in India. The Court’s decision underscores the constitutional boundaries related to foreign affairs and international obligations.

Arguments

The petition has been filed by former civil servants, scholars, activists, and experts in various fields invoking Article 32 of the Constitution.
They are seeking directions from the Union Government to cancel existing licenses/permissions and stop granting new licenses to companies in India for exporting arms and military equipment to Israel during the Gaza conflict.
The companies mentioned in the petition include a Public Sector Enterprise in the Ministry of Defence and private companies that have allegedly received licenses after October 2023.
The petitioners allege a violation of India’s international law obligations and Articles 14, 21, and 51(c) of the Constitution.
India is bound by international treaties prohibiting the supply of military weapons to states involved in war crimes or genocide.
Continuation of export licenses would amount to complicity against the Genocide Convention and other international obligations.
The primary objection to the petition’s validity is that foreign affairs authority rests with the Union Government as per Article 73 of the Constitution.
Counsel Mr. Prashant Bhushan referenced International Court of Justice rulings on Israel’s conduct in Palestinian territories to support the petitioners’ arguments.

Also Read: National Task Force for Healthcare Safety: Ensuring Dignity and Protection for Medical Professionals

Analysis

Parliament has the power to make laws for implementing treaties, agreements, or conventions with other countries.
International law is considered part of the national law by default unless explicitly excluded by the competent legislature.
Granting injunctive relief would involve breaching international contracts and agreements.
The Court does not have jurisdiction over sovereign states like Israel.
The Court risks issuing reliefs without a full understanding of the consequences.
The Union Government should make decisions considering economic, geo-political, and national interests.
The Government can impose prohibitions under relevant laws like the Foreign Trade Act and Customs Act.
The allegations against Israel by the petitioners cannot be appropriately assessed by the Court.
Issuing a writ to cancel arms export licenses to Israel is not within the Court’s jurisdiction.
Israel, being a sovereign nation, is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
The observations made earlier in the judgment do not reflect any opinion by the Court on the conduct of foreign policy by the Government of India or any other sovereign nation.
Courts have self-imposed restraint in entering areas of foreign policy due to sound rationale applied over time.
The reliefs sought in the proceedings are not suitable for judicial remedies under Article 32 of the Constitution.