India is committed to promote friendly relations with other nations. Article 51 of the Constitution of India provides that India shall endeavor to promote international peace and security and also foster respect for International Law. India, as part of its constitutional commitment, constantly endeavors to give effect to treaties and international customs by enacting various legislations which they are obliged to do under Article 253. According to Article 253, the Parliament has power to make law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any Treaty, Agreement or Convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any International Conference, association or other body. The Constitution itself clarifies that for implementing any treaty obligations, a law has to be passed by the Legislature. This Article is in conformity with the object declared by Article 51(c). Treaty-making and implementation of treaties, etc. is a subject of Union Legislation. In India, the provisions of treaty once signed do not automatically form part of the law of the land. The doctrine of Monism as prevailing in European countries is not applied in India, but it is the doctrine of Dualism which is applied in India. The obligations arising under the agreement or treaties are not by their own force binding on Indian nationals. The text of Article 253 assumes that legislation would be required for implementing international treaties, agreements or conventions. But, the courts in India have played a significant role in overcoming the challenges in implementing the provisions of treaty to protect the rights of its citizens. In certain cases, the courts have upheld the provisions of human rights treaties and given effect to those provisions where there is no contradictory municipal law. Judiciary has played an important role over the years in realizing certain provisions of international conventions and protecting the rights of its citizens by basing its decisions on international legal principles. The article presents the judicial trend which is now moving toward monism from dualist approach in implementing treaty obligations.
International law respects sovereign equality of states. Although all states are sovereign in the international legal system but they are bound by the principles of International Law and the international obligations in their relations with each other. There is no sovereign political authority above the states, in the international legal system. Rules of International Law are created by common consent of states. The states give their consent in formation of customs as well as treaties. And the states feel themselves bound to observe these rules. Starke has defined International Law in this sense. According to him, International law is, ‘that body of law which is composed for its greater part of the principles and rules of conduct which States feel themselves bound to observe, and therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each other. These international obligations arise out of the customary international law and treaties/ international conventions that are ratified by the respective states. The binding effect of the rule of International Law is based on the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda, which means that States are bound to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them under treaties. The states are bound to fulfill their treaty obligations vis-à-vis other states. This is important towards achieving the aim of maintaining friendly relations with other states and maintaining international peace and security. But there is no provision under rules of International Law which makes it obligatory for states to make laws for implementing treaties within their national legal system. The treaties to which the state has given its consent, becomes binding on it and it can be enforced by other states in their relation with one another. One of the most significant institutions to administer international law is the United Nations Organisation.
The charter of the United Nations is based on the true legality of International Law, and the purpose of the United Nations is explicit in the charter. One of the main purposes of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security[i] and develop friendly relations among nations. India, being the founding member of the United Nations, strongly supports the purposes and principles of the United Nations, and has endeavored to promote international peace and security; maintain just and honorable relations between nations; foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another; and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration[ii] under its Constitution. India has made significant contribution in promoting the purposes of the United Nations through its Constitutional provisions and judicial activism.
International Law and the Constitution of India
India is committed to promote friendly relations with other nations and foster respect for International Law and treaty obligations. International Law is sourced from international customs[iii]; treaties/ international conventions; general principles of law recognized by States and the juristic works.[iv] Article 51 of the Constitution of India provides that India shall endeavor to promote international peace and security and also foster respect for International Law. This provision was adopted in the Constitution upon the realization that there could be no peace or progress within the country if there was a war in which the country was involved.[v] It embodies the objective of India in the international sphere as a member of the international community and international civilised order. It is important to highlight here that this provision finds its place in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Directive Principles as enshrined in Part- IV of the Constitution are fundamental in the governance of the country but they are not enforceable by any court.[vi] These are the guiding principles for the Legislature while framing laws. Although, the status given to these provisions under the Constitution is forming part of Directive Principles; but it cannot be overlooked that the State is duty bound to apply these principles in making laws.[vii] In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,[viii] the nature and object of Directive Principles is stated: “The Directive Principles of State Policy set forth the humanitarian socialist precepts that were the aims of the Indian social revolution” Whenever action is taken by the State in consonance with the provisions laid down in the Directive Principles of State Policy, as envisaged in Part IV of the Constitution, the same is considered to be a reasonable action. Though the Directive Principles are not enforceable and the courts cannot direct the Legislature or Executive to enforce them, but once the legislation in pursuance of the Directive Principles has been passed, the courts can order the State to enforce the law. The courts are, nevertheless, bound to evolve, affirm and adopt principles of interpretation which will further the goals set out in the Directive Principles of State Policy. In MRF Ltd. V. Inspector, Kerala Govt,.[ix] it was observed by the apex court that the Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable, but are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and have to be applied by the State in making the laws. Therefore, the Legislature while framing laws must ensure that the laws are inconsonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy.
What follows from the above is that the rules of International Law must be respected by the legislature while framing the laws. There is no corresponding provision under the Constitution which lays down that the international treaties or agreements entered into by India shall have the force of municipal law without appropriate legislation. Nevertheless, it is now established that the Directives, in general, though not directly enforceable in the courts, are also binding on the courts in the matter of interpreting the Constitution itself or the statutes wherever possible[x] without doing violence to the express terms of the statute. For this purpose, while courts are not free to direct the making of legislations, but the courts are bound to take into consideration the principles of interpretation to realize the goals, as mentioned under the Directive Principles.
India, as part of its constitutional commitment, constantly endeavors to give effect to treaties and international customs by enacting various legislations which they are obliged to do under Article 253. According to Article 253, the Parliament has power to make law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any Treaty, Agreement or Convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any International Conference, association or other body. The Constitution itself clarifies that for implementing any treaty obligations, a law has to be passed by the Legislature.[xi] This Article is in conformity with the object declared by Article 51(c). Treaty-making and implementation of treaties, etc. is a subject of Union Legislation, under Entry 14, List I. But it would have been difficult for the Union to implement its obligations under treaties or other international agreements had it not been competent to legislate with respect to State subject in so far as that may be necessary for that purpose.[xii] In India, the provisions of treaty once signed do not automatically form part of the law of the land. The doctrine of Monism as prevailing in European countries is not applied in India, but it is the doctrine of Dualism which is applied in India. A treaty entered by India cannot become a law of the land and it cannot be implemented unless Parliament passes a law under Article 253. The obligations arising under the agreement or treaties are not by their own force binding on Indian nationals. The power to legislate in respect of treaties lies with Parliament under Entries 10 and 14 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. The text of Article 253 assumes that legislation would be required for implementing international treaties, agreements or conventions. India, therefore, follows the dualist approach since it is imperative to pass a law by the Parliament to give effect to any treaty/ international convention.
Monist and Dualist Schools of Thought
The State practices pertaining to incorporation of International Law into municipal law have been explained by two schools of law[xiii]. The schools of law on the relationship between international law and national laws (municipal laws) are – Monist and Dualist. Monistic theory was propounded in the Eighteenth century and was put forward by two German scholars Moser (1701- 1785) and Martens (1756- 1821)[xiv]. According to this doctrine, there exists only one set of legal system that is the domestic legal order[xv]. This theory was further developed by Kelsen, an Austrian jurist. This approach does not distinguish between International Law from national law of states. Accordingly, rules of International Law does not need to be transformed into national/ municipal law through any further national legislation and the rules of International Law can be applied as such by municipal courts. The rules of International Law including those in the treaty automatically become effective and incorporated in the Municipal law as soon as the State ratifies a treaty. In a monist state, the court can declare any national rule of law invalid if it contradicts with the international rule of law and thus establishes superiority of International Law even within the municipal sphere.
The Netherlands and Germany are the examples of states having monist approach. Many States expressly accept International Law as part of their domestic law while others do not accept so. Where International Law becomes incorporated in a State’s domestic law without the need for specific legislation, those parts of it, which are sufficiently explicit to be enforceable by the domestic courts, are known as ‘self executing’. Some States provide by their Constitutions that certain provisions of International Law shall be self-executing. For example, the Constitution of the U.S.A., provides that international treaties are part of the law of the land. Other countries have gone even further by not only making International Law self executing, but assigning to it a rank in the domestic hierarchy superior to all prior and subsequent legislation. Examples of this are France and Germany. But there are other States that do not accept any International Law as self-executing, or so accept it in part, for example United Kingdom (U.K.), and these States are dualistic.
According to dualist theory, International Law and municipal laws are two distinct separate and self-contained legal systems[xvi]. And so, International Law would not as such form part of the national law of the state. In such a state, legislature must pass law to give effect to the treaty since ratification of a treaty by the concerned state does not result in automatic incorporation in domestic legal system. This view was propounded by German scholar Triepel in 1899, and further developed by Italian jurist Anzilotti. This theory represents that International Law has different character from that of national law. According to dualist school of thought, the municipal courts shall apply municipal law in case of a conflict between International Law and municipal law. Therefore, municipal law has primacy over International Law according to this theory. The U.K. follows dualist pattern. In Britain, International Law becomes part of law of land only when it is accepted in national law through legislation. A treaty has no effect in municipal law until an Act of Parliament is passed to give effect to it. International Law does not determine which point of view is to be preferred. It is left to the discretion of the states to decide according to their legal traditions and national structure. India, more closely, follows the dualist pattern, which is also evident from the provisions of the Constitution.
In the case of State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & others,[xvii] a five judge Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court observed: “It is true that the doctrine of Monism as prevailing in the European Countries does not prevail in India. The Doctrine of Dualism is applicable. But, where the municipal law does not limit the extent of the statute, even if India is not a signatory to the relevant International Treaty or covenant, the Supreme Court in a large number of cases interpreted the Statutes keeping in view the same.”
Role of Judiciary in India in Implementing Treaty Obligations
The courts in India have played an important role in overcoming the challenges in implementing the provisions of treaty/ international covenants to protect the rights of its citizens. Courts in India, in certain cases, refused to implement treaty provisions in municipal courts without any legislation to that effect. But at the same time, it has upheld the provisions of human rights treaties and given effect to those provisions where there is no contradictory municipal law. Judiciary has played an important role over the years in realizing certain provisions of international conventions and protecting the rights of its citizens by basing its decisions on international legal principles. It would be worthwhile to discuss a few judicial pronouncements in this regard.
In Xavier v. Canara Bank Limited,[xviii] the issue that came up before the Kerala High Court was whether the provisions of International Covenants/ Treaties to which India is a party become part of Corpus Juris of India. More specifically the question pertained to whether Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which provides that no one shall be imprisoned on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, has become part of Municipal law of the country, consequently conferring right to remedial action at the instance of an aggrieved individual. The Court held that ‘…. The remedy for breaches of International Law in general is not found in the law courts of the state because International Law per se or proprio vigore has not the force or authority of civil law, till under its inspirational impact actual legislation is undertaken’. It further observed that although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations but individual citizens cannot complain about their breach in municipal courts even if the country concerning has adopted the covenants and ratified the Optional Protocol. The court also stated that the basic human rights enshrined in the International Covenants may at best inform judicial institutions and inspire legislative action within member states but apart from such deep reverence, remedial action at the instance of an aggrieved individual is beyond the area of judicial authority.
In the case of J.G. Verghese v. Bank of Cochin,[xix] the Hon’ble Supreme Court also dealt with the matter concerning effect of International Law and its enforceability at the instance of individuals within the state (India). The apex court observed that the positive commitment of the state parties ignites legislative action at home but does not automatically make the covenant an enforceable part of law in India. Also in Magnabhai Ishwarbhai Patel v.
Union of India, the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the effect of Article 253 is that if a treaty, agreement or convention with a foreign state deals with a subject within the competence of State Legislature, the Parliament alone has the power to make laws to implement the treaty, agreement or convention or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body. Further, in the year 2005, the apex court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited, held that a Treaty entered into by India cannot become law of the land and it cannot be implemented unless Parliament passes a law as mentioned under Article 253. These observations of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, only reflect the dualistic theory according to which a treaty becomes a law of the land only after its transformation into that law by the legislative process.[xx]
The common law countries which are following dualist pattern, requires the Act of Parliament to transform treaty into the national legislation. But at the same time, the common law countries maintain that the rules of international customary law are part of municipal law only if they are not inconsistent with municipal law. The apex court in India has also followed this rule. In the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India,[xxi] the Supreme Court severely regulated telephone tapping which is permitted under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. The court took into consideration the right to privacy implicit in Article 21 and recognized by Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. It further held that the rules of customary International Law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to be incorporated in the domestic law. We have seen a shift in the approach of the Supreme Court, as in earlier cases, the Hon’ble court held that a treaty entered into by India cannot become law of the land but in the later case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties, the court observed that the rules of Customary International Law shall be deemed to form part of municipal law provided it is not in contradiction to the enacted law. The acceptability of principles of International Law, even if it is in the form of Customary International Law, is quite evident. Hence, though the court cannot directly make the law which is the function of the Legislature, or even to apply a law on its view as it should be, which involves a question of policy, it may apply Article 51, where there is no contrary authority binding on the court.[xxii]
The positive approach of the Supreme Court, towards acceptability of the principles of International Law is further heightened in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others.[xxiii] The Hon’ble court upheld the validity of principles of ‘sustainable development’, ‘polluter pays’ and ‘precautionary principle’. It held that ‘ once these principles are accepted as part of the Customary International Law, there would be no difficulty in accepting them as part of the domestic law. It is almost accepted proposition of law that the rules of Customary International Law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic law and shall be followed by the Courts of Law’. In Gramophone Company of India Limited v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey,[xxiv] the Supreme Court observed that the comity of nations requires that the rules of International Law may be accommodated in the municipal law even without express legislative sanctions provided they do not run in conflict with the Acts of Parliament.
The Supreme Court has played a very important role in implementing treaty obligations in the case of Vishaka and others v State of Rajasthan and others.[xxv] It is a landmark judgment wherein the apex court while promulgating the guidelines on women’s sexual harassment has held that ‘…. in the absence of domestic law occupying the field, to formulate effective measures to check the evil of sexual harassment of working women at all work places, the contents of international conventions and norms are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work with human dignity in Article 14, 15, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein. Any international convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony with its spirit must be read into these provisions to enlarge the meaning and content thereof, to promote the object of the constitutional guarantee’. The court further observed that it is now an accepted rule of judicial construction that regard must be had to the international conventions and norms for construing domestic law where there is inconsistency between them and there is a void in the domestic law. The court referred to its own decision in case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and others.[xxvi] The court in this case observed that there is no reason why these international conventions and norms cannot be used for construing the fundamental rights expressly guaranteed in the Constitution of India. In Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India,[xxvii] while interpreting the right of guardianship of mother while father was alive (under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship) Act 1956, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was again relied on. Also, denying maternity benefit to some of the women employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi was held invalid relying on Maternity Benefit Act, 1951 read along with Article 11 of the above mentioned Convention.[xxviii]
In a recent judgment of 2014 on recognizing transgender as third gender and enforcing their rights guaranteed in the Constitution as citizens of this country, the Supreme Court referred to the provisions of international conventions. In this case titled as National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and others,[xxix] the Hon’ble Court observed that generally, a legislation is required for implementing the international covenants, unlike the position in the USA where the rules of International Law are applied by the municipal courts based on the theory of their implied adoption by the state, as a part of its own municipal law.[xxx] In the US, till an Act of Congress is passed, the court is bound by law of nations, which is part of the law of land. The apex court, while referring to the Indian position with respect to the implementation of international treaty obligations into the municipal legal system, observed that such a ‘supremacy clause’,[xxxi] as is adopted by the US, is absent in our Constitution. Courts in India would apply the rules of International Law according to the principles of Comity of Nations, unless they are overridden by clear rules of domestic law. The court has applied this proposition in many cases which are referred earlier. The court held in the later case that the covenants which India has ratified can be used by the municipal courts as an aid to the interpretation of statutes by applying the doctrine of harmonization. And therefore, if the Indian law is not in conflict with the international covenants, particularly relating to human rights, to which India is a party, the domestic court can apply those principles in Indian conditions. In the present case, the rights of transgender and their protection against discrimination were brought to surface and the Supreme Court gave due regard to international conventions and norms for the protection of rights of transgender community. The court highlighted the significance of International Conventions[xxxii] and the rights covered under these conventions for the third gender. The court also referred to United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which deals with protection of individuals and groups made vulnerable by discrimination or marginalization.
The court, while interpreting Article 51 read along with Article 253 of the Constitution of India, held that if the Parliament has made any legislation which is in conflict with International Law, then Indian courts are bound to give effect to the Indian law. However, in the absence of contrary legislation, municipal courts in India would respect the rules of International Law. Therefore, the Indian commitment to International Treaty obligations under Constitution of India is defined under Article 51(c); which although is only a Directive Principles of State Policy, yet the power of Parliament under Article 253, to enact laws for implementing the treaty obligations is an important provision in this direction.
India has been following the dualist pattern according to the provisions of the Constitution and the judicial approach wherein the apex court has in many cases held that if an Act of Parliament has not been passed, the treaty provisions cannot be enforced by the court of law. In the absence of contrary legislation, municipal courts in India would respect rules of International Law, but if there is any express legislation contrary to a rule of International Law, Indian courts are bound to give effect to the Indian law. It was held in Indramani Pyarelal Gupta v. W. R. Natu,[xxxiii] that every Statute is to be interpreted and applied, as far as its language admits, as not to be inconsistent with the comity of nations or with established principles of International Law. In A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla,[xxxiv] it was observed, “Equally well settled is the rule of construction that if there is a conflict between the municipal law on the one side and the International Law or the provisions of any treaty obligation on the other, the courts will give effect to municipal law. If, however, two constructions of municipal law are possible, the courts could lean in favour of adopting such construction as would make the provisions of the municipal law to be in harmony with the International Law on treaty obligation. Every Statute, according to this rule is interpreted, as far as its language permits, so as not to be inconsistent with the comity of nations on the established principles of International law, the court would avoid a construction which would give rise to such inconsistency unless compelled to adopt it by plain and unambiguous language,”
In later cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court has given effect to treaty obligations especially in the case of Vishaka and others v State of Rajasthan and others[xxxv] and in the recent case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and others.[xxxvi] The Supreme Court has given importance to the rules of International Law and treaty obligations in the national courts. It can be inferred that from a dualist approach, India is moving towards monist approach. The courts in India may enforce international treaties and conventions which are not inconsistent with Indian laws.[xxxvii] In Vellore Citizens Forum[xxxviii] case, it was held that the rules of Customary International Law which are not contrary to municipal laws are deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic law. The principle of ‘Sustainable Development’ as a balancing concept between ecology and development, which is part of Customary International law and the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle which are the essential features used for construing the functions of the authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, which has been enacted to give effect to the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment at Stockholm was followed by Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. Nayudu.[xxxix]
This only reflects how rules of International Law as are mentioned under various conventions and customs are being applied by the municipal courts in India without waiting for the Legislature to frame law to meet the ends of justice.
Also Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that the law laid down by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts in India. Judgments of the Supreme Court constitute a source of law.[xl] It was held that in adjudicatory process, an element of law making is involved.[xli] According to this provision, the Supreme Court can mould and lay down the law formulating principles and guidelines as to adopt and adjust to the changing condition of society, the ultimate objective being to dispense justice.[xlii] The recent decisions of the Supreme Court reflect the trend towards the monist approach, whereby the provisions of international treaties have been enforced in the court of law.
References:[i] Article 1 of the charter of United Nations mentions the purposes of United Nations
[ii] Article 51 of the Constitution of India
[iii] Customary rule of International Law results from a general and consistent practice of States which is followed by them from a sense of legal obligation. A customary rule emerges only when it is proved by satisfactory evidence that the alleged rule (State practice) has been accepted as law by the States.
[iv] Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice 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, established 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’.
[v] D. D. Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India Vol. 3 (8th Ed.) 2008 Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur at 4192
[vi] Article 37 of the Constitution of India
[viii] AIR 1973 SC 1461
[ix] ( 1998) 8 SCC 227
[x] U.P.S.E. Board v. Hari Shanker AIR 1979 SC 65 at 69
[xi] Article 253 of the Constitution of India
[xii] D. D. Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India Vol. 8 (8th Ed.) 2012 Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur at 9012
[xiii] Dr. S. K. Agarwal Implementation of International Law in India: Role of Judiciary Dean Maxwell & Isle Cohen Doctoral Seminar in International Law, McGill University
[xiv] Dr. H. O. Agarwal International Law and Human Rights Central Law Publications (20th Ed.) 2014 at 44
[xvi] Dr. H. O. Agarwal International Law and Human Rights Central Law Publications (20th Ed.) 2014 at 42
[xvii] AIR 2005 SC 46 at para 494
[xviii] 1969 Ker.LT 927.
[xix] AIR 1980 SC 470
[xx] Dr. H.O. Agarwal International Law & Human Rights Central Law Publications (20th Ed.) 2014 at 54
[xxi] AIR 1997 SC 568
[xxii] D. D. Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India Vol. 3 (8th Ed.) 2008 Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur at 4196
[xxiii] AIR 1996 SC 2715
[xxiv] AIR 1984 SC 667
[xxv] AIR 1997 SC 3011
[xxvi] AIR 1993 SC 1960
[xxvii] AIR 1999 SC 1149
[xxviii] Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), AIR 2000 SC 1274
[xxix] AIR 2014 SC 1863
[xxx] Article VI, Clause 2 of US Constitution provides that all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
[xxxi] Article VI, Cl. (2) of the American Constitution provides that all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
[xxxii] Article 1, 3 and 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 6 and 7 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
[xxxiii] AIR 1963 SC 274
[xxxiv] AIR 1976 SC 1207
[xxxv] AIR 1997 SC 3011
[xxxvi] AIR 2014 SC 1863
[xxxvii] Dr. H.O. Agarwal International Law & Human Rights Central Law Publications (20th Ed.) 2014 at 55
[xxxviii] AIR 1996 SC 2715
[xxxix] AIR 1999 SC 812
[xl] All India Reporter Karmachari Sangh v. All India Reporter Limited AIR 1988 SC 1325
[xli] Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727
[xlii] D. D. Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India Vol. 5 (8th Ed.) 2009 Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur at 5955