Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/346055837/Treaty-making-powers-Indian-Constitution-docx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:20:58+00:00

Document:
Bakshi. Former Member.M. Law Commission of India. The Commission places on record its profound appreciation of and gratitude to Shri Bakshi for his contribution. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Consultation Paper on ‘Treaty making power under the Constitution’ is based on a paper prepared by Shri P. .
CONTENTS Pages Part – I Introduction 863 Part – II (i) Kinds of Treaties 868 870 (ii) Australia 871 (iii) France 871 (iv) United States of America 872 (v) Switzerland 872 (vi) Canada 873 (vii) United Kingdom 873 (viii) OECD Countries Part – III (i) The effect of Treaties on Indian Domestic Law: 874 875 (ii) Absence of consultation with Parliament in the matter of treaty-making – the Indian experience 876 (iii) Attempts at amending the Constitution to provide for Parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty- making power of the Union Executive: 879 (iv) Role of Judiciary in Treaty-making: Part – IV Recommendations: 879 881 Questionnaire .
We in India cannot afford to ignore this subject any longer. It said: “It will be essential to keep in mind the distinction between (1) the formation. ecology or finance. and how they are grappling with the issues arising in this behalf. INTRODUCTION Entering into treaties and agreements with foreign powers is one of the attributes of State sovereignty. the Report says “Intellectual property rights under TRIPs Agreement need comprehensive review to redress their perverse effects undermining food security. trade. At page 10. This is more true since the end of the World War II. What the British practice is can better be set out in the words of Privy Council in its celebrated decision in ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA Vs.T. indigenous knowledge. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the power to enter into treaties. if they entail alteration of the existing domestic law. requires legislative action.” It may be that some people may not agree with the above opinion expressed in the Human Development Report. using that word as comprising any agreement between two or more sovereign States. 2. 326 = AIR 1937 P. agriculture and services are so far-reaching that there is a body of opinion. The advent of globalization and the enormous advances made in communication and information technology have rendered independent States inter- dependent. whether it is subject to Parliamentary control or supervision? What is the impact of treaty-making power conferred by entry 14 of List I of the Seventh Schedule and Article 253 of the Constitution upon the federal structure which we have adopted for ourselves? We may have to incidentally examine what is the position in other countries. by virtue of the treaty alone.D. have the force of law… Parliament. Within the British Empire there is a well- established rule that the making of a treaty is an Executive act. In spite of the fundamental importance of the treaty-making power.C. and (2) the performance.C….so much so that the Human Development Report. Many other agreements containing clauses having deleterious effects upon our economy have also been signed during the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations. though in many other countries. serious impact upon our economy. in some cases. environment. but that is not the issue. of the obligations constituted by a treaty.O. for that matter. while the performance of its obligations. groups and institutions likely to be affected adversely thereby. but it cannot be disputed that the creation of the obligations undertaken in treaties and the assent to their form and quality are the function of the Executive alone. communications. has a constitutional control over the Executive. it has unfortunately received very little attention in our country. Every State has entered into and is entering into treaties – be it multi-lateral or bilateral – which have a serious impact upon the economy and the social and political life of its society. our security and the life and livelihood of our citizens as such – whether beneficial or prejudicial.P. Once they are created. The Agreements signed on Intellectual Property Rights.N. treaties signed by our Government without consulting or without taking into confidence either the Parliament or the public or. which honestly thinks that some of the provisions of these Agreements are adverse to our national interest .I 1. in the first instance. Unlike some other countries. bio-safety and access to health care. It is a highly potent power. the legal background to our constitutional scheme. particularly because of the experience of W. or not. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO (1937 A. no doubt.). 1999 published by the U. treaty . The questions we must address therefore are: to whom does this power belong – whether to the Executive or to the Parliament? and if it is the power of the Executive. while they bind the State as against the other contracting parties. has called for a review – a roll back – of the Agreement on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) to protect the health of the people and economies of the developing countries.. whether common law countries or others. No State can insulate itself from the rest of the world whether it be in the matter of foreign relations. agreements and covenants/conventions has. trade. It would be appropriate to examine. the problem is simple. In a unitary State whose Legislature possesses unlimited powers. It is well known that British India had been following the British practice in the matter of treaty-making. Parliament may refuse to perform them and so leave the State in default. Parliament will either fulfill. Part . good amount of research and debate has gone into it. the stipulations of a treaty duly ratified do not within the Empire.
Equally clearly. obligations imposed upon the State by its Executive. in theabsence of parliamentary legislation. except where such implementation requires making of a law by Parliament. Article 246 effects a distribution of legislative power between the Union and the States. 14. of course. is that it is left totally to the Executive to not only enter into treaties and agreements but also to decide the manner in which they should be implemented.” It would be equally relevant to notice the context in which the said observations were made. agreements and conventions with foreign countries. In other words. which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provinces. The nature of the obligations does not affect the complete authority of the Legislature to make them law if it so chooses. to constitutional limitations. War and peace. Entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties. however. The question before the Privy Council concerned the competence of the Federal power to implement international obligations in areas of provincial jurisdiction without provincial cooperation. 1867. The resulting situation. it would be. ordinarily speaking. Foreign jurisdiction. State and Concurrent. to the matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws subject. 3. It is squarely placed within the legislative competence of the Parliament. They read as follows: “13. 16. 15. treaty-making is not within the exclusive competence of the Executive. 15 and 16 in the Union List are relevant. Entries 13. It would be legitimate to presume that our Founding Fathers were acutely aware of this decision and have consciously provided for a departure therefrom in two respects. This was so held in the light of S. And the fact of the matter is that once the Executive Government enters into a treaty. Article 246(1) says: “… Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Union List”). The Privy Council held that the federation had no power to legislate in respect of the matters. particularly Entry 14. Clause (4) empowers the Parliament to make laws with respect to Union territories without any limitation of division of legislative power. The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution (which is referable to Article 246) contains three Lists: Union. unfortunately. (It may be remembered that Canada is a federal State with a distribution of powers between the federal government and the Povinces). By virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution. Associations and other bodies and implementing of decisions made threat. I may elaborate: 4. it is always open to the Parliament to disapprove a treaty . no law has been made regulating the manner in which the Government shall sign or ratify the international conventions and covenants. they expressly included the treaty-making power within the legislative competence of the Parliament (as I will explain presently) and secondly they incorporated Article 253 in Part XI of the Constitution. quite embarrassing for the Parliament to reject the treaty – more so in view of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the making of Treaties which though not yet ratified by India (according to the information given by the concerned Ministries) indicates certain consequences flowing from the conclusion of a treaty. 5.” Clause (2) speaks of the concurrent power of Parliament and State Legislatures to legislate with respect to matters in Concurrent List (List III) while clause (3) empowers the State Legislatures to legislate with respect to matters in the State List (List II). however. Participation in international conferences. the Executive power of the Union extends. it is obvious that the Parliament is competent to make a law with respect to the several matters mentioned in the above entries. Firstly. It is well known that the Parliament has not so far made any law regulating the procedure concerning the entering into treaties and agreements nor with respect to their implementation.” From a reading of Article 246 along with the said Entries.92 of the British North America Act. 14. Theoretically speaking.
Such treaties and awards are ‘self-executing’. G.A. Ordinarily speaking. the Court held that such a course was not necessary in that case. 7. U. the court went into and discussed the treaty- making power in view of the fact that Government of India had entered into an agreement with Pakistan to refer the dispute to third party arbitration. agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference. The learned Chief Justice then referred to the legal position in U. Kanjarkot and a few other villages fell to Pakistan.24) thus: “A treaty really concerns the political rather than the judicial wing of the State. Now. agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference. ceding a portion of the territory of India to a foreign power. While agreeing that cession of territory cannot be effected without amending the Constitution. the other body of Municipal Law notwithstanding.Shah. what they called. the treaty or the compromise read with the Award acquires full effect automatically in the Municipal Law. certain persons approached the Gujarat High Court questioning the power of the Central Government to. The matter was ultimately carried to the Supreme Court.S. associated or other body. Ramaswami. Chief Justice. it would be totally incompetent and ineffective and even the Vienna Convention would not stand in the way. let us turn to Article 253.” This Article empowers the Parliament to make any law. Hidayatullah. but a case of identifying the true border between two States. it is evident. State Legislatures alone have the exclusive power to legislate with respect to those matters. Hidayatullah.” 8. possess the power to implement it. UNION OF INDIA (1970) 3 SCC 400 = AIR 1969 SC 783). if any treaty or agreement violates any of the provisions of the Constitution. quite a few cases have arisen where the Supreme Court had to interpret Entries 14 and 15 of List I of the Seventh Schedule and Articles 73 and 253. the Executive and the Judiciary.C. The Court held in the first instance that it was not a case of cession of territory. 6. J delivered a separate but concurring opinion.Mitter and Grover. however. According to the award made by the Arbitrators. Chief Justice. may not arise. Article 253 is one of those set of Articles. (M.K. which provide certain exceptional situations in which the Parliament can legislate with respect to matters in the State List. When a treaty or an award after arbitration comes into existence. V. for the whole or any part of the territory of India. it has to be implemented and this can only be if all the three branches of Government to wit the Legislature. In some jurisdictions. France (under 1958 Constitution). In the light of this Article. After the commencement of the Constitution. The majority opinion was rendered by M. the matter was referred by both the countries to Arbitration. Legislation may nevertheless be passed in aid of implementation but is usually not necessary. The opening words of the Article “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter” mean that this power is available to Parliament notwithstanding the division of power between the Centre and States effected by Article 246 read with the Seventh Schedule. Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty. or any of them. If there is any deficiency in the constitutional system it has to be removed and the State must equip itself with the necessary power. When this award was sought to be given effect to by the Government of India. 11872 and observed:- . as also to Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act. the situation similar to the one arising in Canada by virtue of the 1937 decision afore-mentioned. Moreover. Article 253 reads:- “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter. as explained hereinafter. JJ while J. on behalf of himself.entered into by the Executive whereupon the treaty will have to effect whatever. In the course of the Judgment. association or other body.K.” Conferment of this power on the Parliament is evidently in line with the power conferred upon it by Entries 13 and 14 of List I. Parliament cannot make a law with respect to a matter in State List.. for implementing “any treaty. prefaced his discussion (para . In view of a border dispute between India and Pakistan in the area of the Rann of Kutch. While it would not be necessary to refer to all of them. it would be enough if we refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench in MAGANBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL Vs.
13. Parliament alone can alone make law to give effect to such treaties and international agreements. it can also direct the Executive to enter into a particular treaty or may disapprove or reject a treaty signed and/or ratified by the Executive. namely. Shah J. the power to make laws to implement the treaty. It was submitted that not only the Union is entitled to enter into treaties by virtue of Entry 14 in list 1 of the seventh Scheduled to the Constitution. Such a case is plainly distinguishable from a case of cession of territory known to be home territory. Must a boundary dispute and its settlement by an arbitral tribunal be put on the same footing? An agreement to refer the dispute regarding boundary involves the ascertainment and representation on the surface of the earth a boundary line dividing two neighboring countries and the very fact of referring such a dispute implies that the Executive may do such acts as are necessary for permanently fixing the boundary. agreement or convention or any decision made at any international conference. But it does not seek to circumscribe the extent of the power conferred by Article 73. It is a different matter that Parliament has not chosen to make a law in that behalf. that no cession of Indian territory can take place without a constitutional amendment.Samant v. association or other body. If. In terms. rights of the citizen or others are . “The Constitution did not include any clear direction about treaties such as is to be found in the United States of America and the French Constitution. It bears repetition to say that under our Constitution. leaving the Executive totally free to exercise this power in an unfettered and. Parliament can by making a law prohibit the Executive to enter into a particular treaty or a particular kind of treaties. It was a petition filed by certain public-spirited individuals seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the Union of India from entering into final treaty relating to Dunkel proposals  without obtaining sanction of the Parliament and State Legislatures. similarly. It only seeks to reproduce a line.9.” 12. It is squarely placed within the domain of the Parliament. It contemplates a line of demarcation on the surface of the earth. in an unguided fashion. who delivered a separate but concurring judgment dealt specifically with Article 253 and made certain observations which are relevant and which constitute the basis for the judgment of the Bombay High Court inP. Reliance was placed particularly upon the following observations of Shah J. agreement or convention with a foreign State deals with a subject within the competence of the State Legislature. treaty-making power is not vested in the Executive or the President – as has been done in some other Constitutions. If I may say. if I may say so. A settlement of a boundary dispute cannot. It was submitted that the said proposals will also affect the maintenance of roads. therefore. the Article deals with legislative power. In reply to these submissions. in his separate but concurrent opinion in Maganbhai: “The effect of Article 253 is that if a treaty. communication etc. in consequence of the exercise of executive power. The learned Chief Justice then referred to Articles 1. the Union Government cannot trench upon the matters in the State list. Theoretically speaking. be held to be a cession of territory. thereby power is conferred upon the Parliament which it may not otherwise possess. bridges. It was submitted that Dunkel proposals dealt with subjects like agriculture. The contention was that in exercise of its executive power. which too are in the state list. with the greatest respect at my command. 3. irrigation. notwithstanding Article 246(3). the above statement of law does not appear to take notice of the effect of placing the treaty-making power in the Union List which necessarily means that Parliament is competent to make a law laying down the manner and procedure according to which treaties and agreements shall be entered into by the Executive as also the manner in which they shall be implemented. the Union Government cannot enter into any agreement on the said proposals which are being discussed as part of Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations under the auspices of GATT. the Union of India relied upon article 253 of the Constitution and the decision of the Supreme court in Maganbhai. It was therefore contended that unless the consent of the states is obtained. The facts and the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court deserve a closer look inasmuch as it deals directly with the issue discussed herein. The case is one in which each contending State ex facie is uncertain of its own rights and therefore consents to the appointment of an arbitral machinery.B. 73 and 253 as well as Entries 14 and 15 in List-I of the Seventh Schedule and to the earlier decision of the Court and observed: “The precedents of this Court are clear only on one point. Union of India (1994 Bombay 323). the Parliament alone has. a statutable boundary and it is so fixed. 11.”) 10. cotton and other matters which are within the exclusive domain of the states.
Treaties are of two kinds: first category treaties are those which become binding as a result of signatures affixed at the completion of the negotiations. The Division Bench noted the submission of the learned counsel for the Union of India that the treaty in question was not a self-executing treaty and that the provisions of the treaty can be given effect to only by making a law in terms of the agreement/treaty. As has happened in the case of Uruguay Round of Trade negotiations held under the auspices of GATT. The Division Bench also dealt with the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the decision of the Supreme court in Maganbhai on Article 73 and 253 should be understood as limited only to those cases where the treaty or agreement covers matters which are in the Union List or in the Concurrent List. the executive power cannot be exercised by entering into treaty as it is likely to affect the matters in the State list. Relying upon the observations of Shah J. then it is difficult to appreciate how it can be held that the Central Government is not entitled to enter into treaty or agreement which affects the matters included in the State list. Article 27 of the Convention stipulates that the States cannot be excused or be relieved from compliance with the treaty entered into by them on the basis of or by reference to inadequate national law. In particular they relied upon the proviso to Article 73 which says that the executive power referred to in sub-clause (a) of clause 1 of that article “shall not. “it is difficult to accede to the contention that though the Parliament has power to enact laws in respect of matters covered by the State list in pursuance of treaty or the agreement entered into with foreign countries. follows later. As a matter of fact. In case the Parliament is entitled to pass laws in respect of matter in the State list in pursuance of the treaty or the agreement. as contemplated by Article 84 thereof – all aspects of treaty-making are regulated by the said Convention. the exercise of power must be supported by legislation : where there is no such restriction. the executive is competent to exercise the power. infringement of the right or modification of the laws. 1969 entered into force. multi-lateral treaties routinely provide for ratification in case of those who have signed the treaty and for accession in case of those who have not signed the treaty. This rule is however subject to Article 46 which says that such a . or laws are modified. as the case may be. The observation leave no manner of doubt that in case the Government enters into treaty or agreement. then in respect of implementation thereof. save as expressly provided in this Constitution or in any law made by Parliament. which is signed by the delegations of the participating countries. Since 1980 – that is in the year in which the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The signature of the treaty. it is stated that India has not yet ratified the same. Then there are treaties which require a further step to be taken after the text has been established by signature before the treaty will take effect. The High Court agreed with the Respondents. quoted above. its provisions do deserve notice. it is open for the Parliament to pass a law which deals with the matters which are in the State list.” 16. This argument of the learned counsel was rejected holding. extend in any state to matters with respect to which the legislature of the state has also power to make laws. Examples of this kind of treaties are simple bilateral agreements. Examples of this kind of treaties are the multi-lateral treaties which are generally far more important than the simple bilateral agreements. 18. which is usually subject to subsequent ratifications. whether by way of ratification or by legislation. The Court finally observed: “the issue as to whether the Government should enter into a treaty or agreement is a policy decision and it is not appropriate for the courts in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to disturb such decisions.” 14. Even so.restriced or infringed.” 15. at the end of the negotiations. a Final Act is prepared. recording the result of the several multi-lateral treaty negotiations. the High Court held : “The observations made by the learned Judge establish that the executive power conferred under Article 73 is to be read along with the power conferred under Article 253 of the Constitution of India.” # The submission was that the executive power of the Union Government cannot extend to matters in the State List.” Part II (i) Kinds of Treaties 17. Of course.
Indeed. The core issue in our system of Government. Ninian Stephen. it is not less than fifty thousand. Sir. any treaty signed by the Union Executive concerning or affecting the entries in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution would be incompetent and unenforceable since its executive power does not extend to matters in State or Concurrent List. To be more specific. particularly the multi-lateral treaties. by the nations themselves. which is largely patterned upon U. having regard to its manner of functioning. then the question arises: is it possible for the Parliament. as pointed out by the Prime Minister of New Zealand Mr.e. Do we know the number of treaties. it will be a good defence to the binding nature of that treaty. this is an inescapable – if not an inevitable – process.S. Those thousands of treaties and other international agreements and declarations have the effect of transferring partially. conventions and covenants that have been entered into since Ward War II – leave aside the earlier period? According to former Australian Governor General. as on today. Also because. patents. One example is the TRIPs Agreement whereunder all the member countries are obliged to change their national laws to accord with the Agreement. Bolger. And it is precisely for this reason that there is concern all over the world that the practice whereunder the treaties are entered into by the Executive without significant Parliamentary or public involvement is not only undemocratic but also dangerous. no doubt. pure sovereignty – the complete control of one’s own affairs – is not possible. no matter how large or powerful. This. Many of these treaties particularly multilateral treaties concerning trade. To elaborate the core issue. our economy and on the individual rights of the citizen – indeed for our constitutional ethos as such. investment. extending the executive power to State or Concurrent List in the matter of treaty-making. and then protecting and projecting those values into its dealings with other Governments and international organizations… In an inter-dependent world.” This would mean that if the Union Executive signs any treaty which violates any of the provisions of our Constitution.plea is available in case the violation of domestic law “was manifest and concerned a rule of its (State’s) internal law of fundamental importance. It cannot be denied that these treaties are eating into the power of the nation/states to manage their own affairs and are correspondingly enhancing the power of the market and multi- national corporations.” 20. no law has been made by the Parliament. It is being felt generally by jurists all over the world that the Parliament and the public must be involved more and more in the process of treaty-making because it is ultimately the people whose rights and entitlements are going to be affected by these treaties. (Article 18 obliges the country which has signed the treaty from taking any action pending ratification of the treaty. but whether the exercise of State sovereignty (i. in New Zealand. cannot themselves deal with such transnational issues as climate change. as contemplated by the proviso to Article 73(1). It is my respectful submission that it does. True it is. which runs counter to the treaty. a Bill called New Zealand International Legal Obligations Bill. resource conservation and drug trafficking…. 1997 was introduced which seeks to provide for parliamentary approval of treaties and requires the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade further to inform the House on the progress of the treaty negotiations. assuming that Parliament can do so even in respect of matters in State List. capital flows.e. services and agriculture are bound to have pervasive and significant implications for our legal and administrative system. 21. who said on 6th June. is not whether the State Sovereignty is restricted by these treaties. But. it is unconstitutional and inoperative.Individual countries. to look into and approve or ratify each of the treaties and agreements which the Executive has to enter into in the course of its international dealings. the several questions that arise in this behalf are: (1) Which treaties are deemed to be sufficiently important to be referred to the Parliament? (2) Who is to determine the importance of a particular treaty for being referred to the . treaty- making) by the Executive Government restricts the parliamentary sovereignty to an unacceptable extent.) It is thus evident that any treaty or international agreement entered into by the Union Executive beyond its power (i. power conferred by Article 73) or in violation of the constitutional limitation indicated hereinbefore. laws. The role of Government in international relations is increasingly one of identifying and aligning self-interest with the values most of its electorate hold to be important. is only not binding on India. 19. of their sovereignty in recognition of their inter-dependence on one another and their absolute need in today’s world to relate to other nations and to do so in part through the medium of international treaties and conventions giving rise to new international law and a growth of common-form laws. is happening in many other countries too. 1997: “We live in a globalised world economy….
after signature but before they are ratified. a special procedure was devised under which the Agreements will be tabled in the House as soon as possible with an explanation of reasons for urgent action. the Prime Minister of Australia announced in the Parliament in the year 1961 that henceforward the Government will lay on the table of both Houses texts of the treaties signed for Australia. whether or not ratification is required. 25. a practice has developed in that country whereunder Australia would not ratify a treaty or accept an obligation under the treaty until appropriate domestic legislation is in place in respect of treaties where legislation is necessary to give effect to the treaty obligations. Several proposals have been made by groups of parliamentarians to provide for greater overview by Parliament of the treaty-making power and also to identify and consult the groups which may be affected by the treaty. An Australian Jurist. It would be appropriate to begin with Australia since it is not only a common law country but also a federation. Before proceeding to examine the issue further. we must take note of a practical problem – what I have referred to just now as the manner of functioning of Parliament – that the Members of Parliament are exceedingly busy – in any event. 1996. let alone evaluate. All of them are strongly critical of the lack of transparency in the treaty- making process. Even so. 1900 provides for distribution of powers between the Federal Government and the States. National Farmers Federation has suggested that not only the treaties should be laid on the table of the House before they are finalized but the text of the treaty should be accompanied by a statement clearly setting out the important treaty obligations being undertaken by the country thereunder. Under Section 61 of the Constitution. Naylor says: “The object of the reform process should be to ensure that the Parliament is able to participate in the process in a way that ensures that the commonwealth (Executive government) is not unduly hampered in its ability to participate in foreign affairs and meet its international obligations. for short.Parliament? (3) At what stage should the Parliament come into the picture – whether before entering into the treaty or after it is signed but before it is ratified or only when a legislation is required to be made to give effect to the treaty? (4) What form should the reference to Parliament be – should it be subjected to a positive resolution of approval or should it be provided that the treaty be laid before the House for a particular period. on the expiry of which the Parliament must be deemed to have approved it by default and so on? Some jurists have suggested a middle ground which seeks to balance the power of Executive to freely make and execute an international agreement with other nation States and the requirement of an increasing Parliamentary involvement. 23. it would be appropriate to notice the practice obtaining under several country-jurisdictions in the world. if one can call it. Further. social and environmental and the extent of consultation already held by affected groups and so on – impact assessment statement. The Australian Constitution Act. Where however urgent action has to be taken. proceed to ratify or accede to a treaty until it has been laid on the table of both Houses for at least 12 sitting days. This arrangement was to apply to both bilateral and multi-lateral treaties and to their amendments. busy with matters of momentary or local concern and that it is extremely difficult to persuade them to read and absorb. namely. (ii) AUSTRALIA 24. One of the NGOs in that country. the contents of all the treaties with which our country may be concerned. the States will be consulted before entering into treaties and any particular information about the treaties will be placed before the Premiers and Chief Ministers’ . the Foreign Minister made a statement to the House of Representatives outlining a new treaty-making process. In May. to allow for parliamentary scrutiny. what effect the treaty will have on the Australian national interests including economic.” 22. the power to enter into treaties is an Executive power. as a general rule. Do we not know that even such extremely important matters as the budget proposals are very often approved by applying the guillotine because most of the time of Parliament is consumed by less important and sometimes topics of no relevance to Parliament – apart from frequent shut-downs. Be that as it may. the treaties will be tabled at least for 15 sitting days. In this connection. According to this. as well the texts of those treaties to which the Government is contemplating accession. It was stated that the Government would not.
The type of agreements so contemplated are those relating to foreign relations and military matters which do not affect the rights and obligations of the citizens. It is not known whether it has been made into an Act.. According to the said article. a different procedure is evolved. a treaty entered into by the Federal government does not become a part of domestic law and is not enforceable by courts until legislation is undertaken by competent legislature in that behalf and (b) a treaty or an international Convention/Covenant signed/ratified by the Federal government gives rise to a legitimate expectation at law that could form the basis for challenging an administrative decision. The role of the Parliament appears to be quite restricted.S. a Bill was introduced in the Federal Legislature mainly with a view to partially affirm and partially supersede the decision of the Australian High Court in MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS V. 26.e. Since such agreements are not considered treaties.S. the Parliament’s power is only to approve or reject its ratification. (iv) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 28.A. places them before Senate for its “Advice and Consent”. states. The said decision enunciated two propositions: (a) that under the Australian constitutional system. Section 2 of the U. [It is interesting to note that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties applies only to treaties and not to International Agreements (Article 2)]. Constitution. inter alia. from European affairs until the developments in Germany under Hitler brought it back into it. The two famous instances in which Senate refused to ratify or approve the treaty signed by the President are (a) the Treaty of Versailles concluded at the end of World War I and (b) Comprehensive Test Ban treaty on nuclear tests. Article II. it rejected the same – effectively withdrawing U.Department. are associated with treaty making from the very beginning so that it may be easier for the President to get the treaty ratified later by the Senate. Since the Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations under Article 1 of the Constitution. exchanging or adding territories. In the year 1997. those that are known as Executive agreements. are concerned. The power to conclude treaties is vested in the President of the Republic by virtue of Article 52 of the French Constitution. The types of treaties contemplated in Article 52 include peace treaties. A joint Standing Committee on treaties was established comprising Members of both Houses and consisting of Federal and State Officers who shall meet twice every year and consider and report upon the treaties tabled before the House. President Wilson. which deals with the powers of the President.A. In so far as the trade agreements are concerned. In view of this constitutional position. important persons among them. But.S. the Senators i. between treaties and agreements. A distinction is made in the U. they are required by the Constitution to be submitted to Senate for approval/ratification. TEOH (1995) 183 CLR 273. who was indeed the moving spirit behind the Versailles treaty. Once a treaty has come into/force. the Parliament comes into picture only in the case of certain types of treaties and that too after the terms of the treaty have been decided upon. provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur …” The President initiates and conducts negotiations of the treaties and after signing them. it overrides any conflicting domestic legislation even if such legislation happens to be passed subsequent to the ratification of the treaty. So far as the treaties are concerned. they are entered into and signed by the President in exercise of his Executive power. that the President is empowered “by and with the Advice and consent of the Senate. The Bill was intended to affirm (a) and to over-rule (b). 29. to make Treaties. The President not only negotiates but also ratifies the treaties on his own. (iii) FRANCE: 27. signed the treaty together with allied nations but when it was presented to the Senate. so far as the agreements and particularly. a practice has developed in that country according to which. Even the Comprehensive Test Ban on nuclear tests (CTBT) was the handiwork of the President Clinton and his predecessors. such treaties are subject to ratification by both Houses but only by a simple majority. human rights treaties and treaties ceding. The Government has also agreed in principle to append a statement indicating the impact of the proposed treaty to the papers laid before the House. Article 55 of the French Constitution indeed provides that concluded treaties do not require implementing legislation in order to be enforceable. . trade treaties. Even then.
(b) There are treaties which require approval of the Parliament before they become enforceable. which. (d) In some cases. following the British practice and particularly the decision of Privy Council in ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA Vs. an alternative method is provided where the Parliament can only denounce the agreement if it does not agree with it. 1982 (British North-American Act. The Federal Council negotiates and signs the treaties. With respect to the effect of the treaties. Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution expressly provides that “All treaties made or which shall be made with the authority of the United States. The agreements subjected to this procedure are those which provide for adherence to supra-national organizations and organizations for collective security. The Government normally seeks the approval of the Parliament before ratifying an important Treaty though there is no such constitutional obligation. are not binding in international law. (vi) CANADA 34.30. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO referred hereinbefore. without the possibility of denunciation. The treaty not only overrides any federal law of the country but also overrides any provision in the Constitution of the State or the laws made by any State Congresses to the contrary. shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. The Constitution also requires that any legislation required to implement a treaty can be enacted only by the provinces and it is because of this requirement that a good amount of consultation with the provinces is undertaken before concluding a treaty. The advantage of this system is that it allow for adequate scrutiny of those agreements which have significant implications for the nation and affect the rights of the citizens. it is said. The Executive authority in Switzerland is exercised by Federal Council headed by the President and the Federal Chancellor. The legal position in Switzerland is distinct altogether. 33. The Federal Council has seven members elected at a joint meeting of the two Houses of Parliament. the Federal Government exercises the exclusive power to enter into treaties on behalf of Canada. but there is no question of approval or ratification by the Parliament. The categories of treaties subjected to this procedure are treaties which are effective for an indefinite period. anything in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. However. Argentina and Mexico. follow the United States pattern. it appears. . in the case of urgent and sensitive treaties. it is ratified/finalized in four different ways : (a) In some cases Parliament authorises the Federal Council in advance not only to sign a treaty but also to bring it into force. Approval is given in the form of resolution by both Houses of Federal Legislature. Of course. (v) SWITZERLAND: 32. 1867) does not contain a specific provision with reference to external affairs.” This is a fundamental departure from the British practice. 35. The peculiar feature of the Canadian Constitution is that even the Provinces have the power to enter into international agreements. 31. the agreement has to be approved by a compulsory referendum as provided for in Article 89(5). (c) A treaty may be subjected to an optional referendum as provided for in Article 89(3) of the Constitution. Once it is negotiated and signed. Thus there are four different processes for concluding a treaty in Switzerland depending upon the nature of treaty. The Canadian Constitution Act.
however.H. METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER – 1979 (1) Ch. 418) wherein has been observed : “The Government may negotiate. BBC –1981 A.C.Robertson in “Human Rights . This Rule was qualified by the Court of Appeal in SALOMON Vs. breach. the law enunciated by the Privy Council in ATTORNEY GENREAL FOR CANADA is being followed here. until the municipal law is changed to accommodate the Government what binds the court is the former.K. observe. Since 1974. The courts must enforce those laws. Indeed the ratio of the said decision has been recently affirmed by the House of Lords in J. As late as 1985. the English law is at variance with the law in the United States. CLERICAL AND COMPUTER STAFF – 1983 (2) A. DEPT. OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (1990 (2) A. 303 – House of Lords) and freedom of Association (CHEALL Vs. construe. As would be evident from the decision of the Supreme Court in MAGANBHAI. Contempt of Court (ATTORNEY GENERAL Vs. the British practice in the matter of treaty making. Even so. In a majority of 24 OECD countries. 116) saying that such a course is permissible only where the terms of legislation are not clear and are capable of more than one meaning and further where there is cogent extrinsic evidence showing that the enactment was intended to fulfill obligations under a particular convention. In several decisions.(vii) UNITED KINGDOM: 36. According to these decisions. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (1967 (2) Q. 344). not the latter. Krishna Iyer J speaking for the court held:“India is now a signatory to this Covenant and Art. From the national . 470 AIR).R.C. (viii) OECD COUNTRIES 38. repudiate or terminate a treaty. judges have no power to grant specific performance of a treaty or to award damages against a sovereign state for breach of a treaty or to invent laws or misconstrue legislation in order to enforce a treaty. So far as the effect of concluded treaties on the domestic law is concerned. they can be taken into account in the course of interpreting and applying British statutes. H. the English courts have consistently taken the view that in so far as the provisions of International Conventions of Human Rights are concerned. the former prevails. The legal position in U. conclude. V. India has been following. the Parliament undertakes legislation to give effect to an international convention. This was so held by the Supreme Court in Jolly Verghese v.C. has been succinctly set out in the decision of the Privy Council aforementioned. it has been held that the courts must presume that Parliament intended to fulfill the international obligations undertaken by the States. excluding of course the self-executing treaties.B. ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL EXECUTIVE. Parliamentary approval is required at least in case of certain categories of treaties. 180 – House of Lords). This is supposed to be a principle of constitutional law. Bank of Cochin (1980 (2) SCC 360 = 1980 SC. A. the treaties entered into by the Union of India do not become enforceable at the hands of our courts and they do not become part of our domestic law. RAYNER LIMITED Vs.” 37. Lord Fraser of Tullyhelson said in CCSU v. Where. the courts have taken into account the treaty-based standards concerning Human Rights to resolve the issues of common law including legality of telephone tapping (MALONE Vs. Generally accepted principle in English law is that in case of conflict between the British statutes and the provisions of a treaty. 51(c) of the Constitution obligates the States to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another”. Part III (i) The effect of Treaties on Indian Domestic Law: 39. even after the advent of the Constitution. Minister for Civil Service (1985 AC 374) “Conventions are not part of law in this country”. In other words.in National and International Law” rightly points out that international conventional law must go through the process of transformation into the municipal law before the international treaty can become an internal law. Parliament may alter the laws of the United Kingdom.
” The court quoted with approval the statement of law in Xavier v. Saheli. viz. Legislation is no doubt the main function of Parliament but it also performs many other functions all of which do not amount to legislation.K. (It may be remembered that so far as United States of America is concerned the United States Constitution itself says that a treaty signed by the President and approved by the senate becomes enforceable and overrides any US law to the contrary). however. A Women’s Resources Centre v. in most of the countries by the Executive acting alone and that the prerogative of making the law is that of Parliament alone. the question to what extent the conventions and covenants signed by the Government of India can be enforced through courts was specifically gone into. made a reservation to this clause while ratifying the said Convention saying that Indian law does not recognize any such right. Canara Bank Limited (1969 KLJ 927 at 931 and 933).Basu]. 1966. nonetheless. para 43 (SCC p.point of view the national rules alone count………with regard to interpretation. however. enforceable as such. Hongray v. the question may yet arise whether such approval can be equated to legislation and invests the Covenant with the sanctity of a law made by Parliament. 41. which elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. we must take note of a recent decision of the Supreme Court. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241). Commr. C. Union of India. where it was held that until domestic legislation is undertaken to give effect to the letter or spirit of an international covenant or declaration. 40. Indeed. Sebastian M. State of J & K. This reservation has.” This decision indicates not only a recognition of an International Covenant ratified by India but also a readiness to ignore the reservations appended by our country while ratifying the Convention. State of West Bengal (1997 (1) SCC 416).. it would suffice to state that the provisions of the covenant. this aspect requires deeper scrutiny than has been possible in this case. Assuming that it has. Of Police. it appears that at the time of ratification of the said Covenant in 1979. however. can certainly be relied upon by courts as facets of those fundamental rights and hence. para 42) in D. TOEH (1995) 69 Aus LJ 423). it is a principle generally recognized in national legal systems that. the covenant or declaration cannot be held to have the force of law and can not be enforced by the Courts in India. the national rule is to be interpreted in accordance with the State’s international obligations. Article 9(5) of the said Convention declares that “anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have enforceable right to compensation”.Bommai v. The Government of India had.” 42. Reference is to the decision of the court in D. Union of India.K Basu v. The court was concerned in that case with the protection to be afforded to working women from sexual harassment at workplace so as to make their fundamental . The Government of India had acceded to and ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. in the light of the law developed by the Supreme Court. the Government of India had made a specific reservation to the effect that the Indian legal system does not recognize a right to compensation for victims of unlawful arrest or detention. Even in Britain a slightly different view is taken so far as Human Rights conventions are concerned and also in view of that country’s accession to Rome treaty.438. every action of Parliament cannot be equated to legislation. For the present. been held to be of little relevance now in view of the decision in Nilabati Behera [See page 313. After noticing the decision of the Australian High Court in MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS v. In our opinion.J. It is not clear whether our Parliament has approved the action of the Government of India ratifying the said 1966 Covenant. in the event of doubt. unless Parliament legislates. State of Bihar. this Court has judicially evolved a right to compensation in cases of established unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty or life. has now lost its relevance in view of the law laid down by this Court in a number of cases awarding compensation for the infringement of the fundamental right of a citizen. The Supreme Court however opined that “That reservation. At the same. the ratification of these conventions and covenants is done. no law can come into existence. State). a decision of the Kerala High Court. The question was again considered by the Supreme Court in Visakha vs. the court observed: “The main criticism against reading such conventions and conventions into national laws is one pointed out by Mason. where a slightly different viewpoint was adopted. The court also referred to the position of multi-lateral treaties in United States and England with reference to certain decisions of those countries. himself. As pointed out by this Court in S.R. (See Nilabatai Behera v. 43. of course. In PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTAIES v.) There is indeed no express provision in the Constitution of India for grant of compensation for violation of a fundamental right to life. Bhim Singh v. (See with advantage Radul Sah v. UNION OF INDIA (1997) 3 SCC 433).
without again approaching the Parliamentary Committee or the Parliament. services. It is obvious that had there been a law regulating the treaty-making power of the Government and if such law had provided for either prior approval. 15. ratification. The draft Agreement (on TRIPs) – which according to the HDR 1999. is therefore. By way of example.1993 though with certain reservations) and upon the Beijing Statement of Principles of Independence of the Judiciary in the Law Asia Region. was being pushed mainly by the multi-national drug companies – ran counter to almost each and every major premise of the “Background” paper submitted by India to the Negotiating Committee on July 27. The existing article may be numbered as clause (1) and the following “clause (2)” may be inserted therein:- “(2) A treaty. freely entering into treaties on its own without reference to the Parliament.06. the Standing Committee of Parliament attached to the Commerce Ministry consisting of forty Members of Parliament drawn from all political parties. It also apposed the onerous conditions attached for permitting transition period to countries like India (which were not only developing countries but also did not recognize product patent till then). such a thing could not have happened.” (ii) Absence of consultation with Parliament in the matter of treaty-making – the Indian experience 45. Article 73 is also relevant. The executive power of the Union. published by UNDP. Relying upon Articles 14. agriculture . 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Parliamentary Committee also opposed the 20-year period for the patents and the provision of the draft agreement which entitled the patent holder not to manufacture drugs and medicines within India while at the same time enjoying the benefits of patent in India. It opined that product patent system should not be imposed on India since it would result in steep increase in prices of medicines. The question that arises in such a situation is what was the relevance of consulting the Standing Committee of Parliament and then signing the agreement in total disregard of the Report and recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee. the Union Government has been. 1989. available till Parliament enacts legislation to explicitly provide the measures needed to curb the evil. Accordingly.rights meaningful.” The Court relied upon the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (which Convention has been ratified by the Government of India on 25. The Government probably thought it would be appropriate to bring the matter to the notice of Parliament. India was evidently rattled by the draft Agreement on TRIPs produced by the Conference. With a view to obviate any controversy or ambiguity on this aspect. What is relevant to mention however is that the Government of India signed the TRIPs agreement in 1994. it would be instructive to notice what happened in the case of TRIPs agreement. shall be treated or construed as an instrument having the force of law within the territory of India and no rights or entitlement shall be founded upon such treaty. consideration or discussion of the treaty before it comes into force. It provides that the executive power of the Union shall extend to matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws. 1993. Only where legislation is required to give effect to the terms of a treaty or a convention or a covenant has the Central Government been approaching the Parliament to make laws in those terms. We have signed several agreements concerning trade. Taking advantage of the fact that Parliament has chosen not to make any law regulating the treaty-making power. It said that it should be left to the Indian state to determine whether it will go in for product patent or not. taking advantage of Article 73 of the Constitution. agreement or convention concluded by the Government of India in exercise of the executive power vested in it by Article 73(1) of this Constitution read with clause (1) of this article. This is implicit from Article 51© and the enabling power of Parliament to enact law for implementing international conventions and norms by virtue of article 253 read with entry 14 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. the court observed that “any international convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony with this spirit must be read into these provisions to enlarge the meaning and content thereof to promote the object of the constitutional guarantee. It needs to be emphasized that TRIPs agreement is not the only agreement signed by the Government of India in the course of Final Round of Uruguay negotiations. considered the draft Agreement and submitted a Report on November 13. practically in the same shape as the draft agreement. 44. The Standing Committee opposed all the major stipulations and terms contained in the draft agreement. agreement or convention. it may be necessary to amend Article 253.
He pointed out that there are two sides of the picture.A. This Bill. 1994 on the same lines as suggested by Shri M. political.1994 in the negative. treaty. 1992. Lok Sabha gave notice of intention to introduce the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.P. memorandum of understanding. The Senate yet rejected the treaty. Shri George Fernandes. memorandum of understanding contract or deal entered into by the Government of India including borrowing under article 292 of the Constitution with any foreign country or international organization of social. Baby. (b) Shri Satyaprakash Malviya. industrial and engineering goods from South-east Asia and China are flooding our markets driving out local producers. agricultural products and what not. Baby. He pointed out that where parliamentary approval is required.all of which seriously impinge upon our economy. He gave the example of the United State’s Senate refusing to ratify the treaty of Versailles concluded at the end of the World War in spite of the fact that President Wilson had played a crucial role in bringing about the said treaty. spoke at length on the said Bill. Baby. 1992 to amend Article 77 of the Constitution of India providing that “every agreement. contract or deal and shall operate only after it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament”. Member of Parliament. Shri Pranab Mukherjee. Rajya Sabha gave a notice of his intention to introduce the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. businessmen and industrialists. Member of Parliament. 1994. 1993 for amending article 253 to provide that treaties and conventions be ratified by each House of Parliament by not less than one half of the membership of each House and by a majority of the legislatures of not less than half the States.2001 when the existing quota and other restrictions will disappear. The Bill was not listed for consideration during the life of that Lok Sabha. had not been taken up for consideration during the life of that Lok Sabha. 1993. [On 17th July. it has led to certain complications. He then referred to the two treaties signed between India and Nepal on harnessing water resources of Mahakali and other rivers and the other with Bangladesh on sharing of the Ganga waters. tariff and patents shall be laid before each House of Parliament prior to the implementation of such agreement. (c) In February.A. We do not know what is going to happen after 1.P. Member. The question was answered on 12. however. 1997. Shri M. upon our agriculturists. It is a matter of common knowledge that neither the Parliament nor the people of this country were taken into confidence before signing these agreements having such serious repercussions upon the life and the lives of the citizens of this country. Member of Parliament. leaving the field free for free trade in goods.6856) enquiring whether the Government proposes to introduce any legislation to amend the Constitution to provide for parliamentary approval of international treaties.4. in February 1992 came up for discussion in the Rajya Sabha only in March. Cheap agricultural. he agreed that his intention was not to say that the Parliament should be kept in dark or that the . Shri Baby spoke passionately in support of the said Bill pointing out in particular the adverse consequences flowing from the several WTO Agreements signed and ratified by the Government in 1994 [Uruguay Round of GATT Negotiations] without reference to the Parliament.A. It therefore becomes essential to think of subjecting the treaty-making power of the Central Government to appropriate checks and controls.and so on . He submitted that had these agreements been submitted to Parliament for ratification/approval – particularly the treaty with Bengla Desh – it would have been extremely difficult to obtain such approval or ratification in the prevailing circumstances.] 46. services. (iii) Attempts at amending the Constitution to provide for Parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty-making power of the Union Executive: (a) On 5th March.05. M. economic. treaty. M. financial or cultural nature and settlements relating to trade. Rajya Sabha tabled a question (No. Lok Sabha gave notice of his intention to introduce a Constitution (Amendment) Bill. as is sought to be done in several countries all over the world. The results of these agreements are already becoming evident to us. At the same time.Shri Chitta Basu. The Private Member’s Bill to amend the Constitution introduced by Shri M.
executive has to render continuous accountability to Parliament and that the Parliament can always question the acts and steps taken by the Government. 48. The Tashkent Declaration 1966. is not in a position to consider debate or take a decision on each . in no country do all treaties require approval by the legislature. He pointed out further that the Parliament is not so constituted as to discuss the international treaties and agreements in an effective manner. He also pointed out that one of the reasons for the success of European Union and ASEAN as ‘economic blocs’ is that the decision makers of the constituent countries. Ultimately. We have already taken note of the fact that the parliament. induce us to revise our views expressed here-in-before. approval by Parliament. (4) Treaties ceding territory of India are subject to constitutional amendment. Friendship and Cooperation between India and USSR 1971 and the Shimla Agreement 1972 are the examples.authority of the Parliament in this behalf should be denied. (2) Treaties of importance are first brought to the attention of the Parliament and decision of ratification is kept pending in the absence of a clear decision. the administrative ministry is also required in consultation with and approval from the Department of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Law to identify the need for any implementing legislation either by way of amendments to the existing law or by the enactment of a new legislation. however. for instance. Narayan Rao contained in his article “Parliamentary Approval of Treaties in India” published in the Indian Year Book of International Affairs in 1960-61 at pages 22/38-39): “Generally. treaties of alliance and treaties entailing far-reaching political consequences” 49. their executive. But … the following matters at least require legislative approval. treaties requiring legislation for implementation. is by and large free to take decisions in matters of common interest.e. In such a situation. i. He finally opined than more debate should go into the matter before effecting such an amendment. The comprehensive Treaty on banning the Nuclear Tests (CTBT) is an example. In some of the cases. discussion was also held and resolutions were passed approving such treaties. It is pointed out that as a matter of fact: (1) The views of all concerned ministries are taken into consideration and different interests are identified and reconciled before the Cabinet is requested to approve a treaty. the Treaty of Peace. He also pointed out that under our present system of Parliamentary Government. he suggested that there should be informed debate and discussion on the issue and that one should not rush with such measures. entrusting the Parliament with the power to oversee any and every treaty and agreement and convention being entered into or signed by the Government of India would not be practicable and would also not lead to desirable consequences. [He then pointed out the impracticality of bringing the borrowing power of the Centre also under the control of Parliament. 47. He pointed out that any GATT/WTO Agreements. It is also brought to our notice by certain experts in the field that the present method has worked well in India for the last 50 years except perhaps in the case of WTO treaties (agreements entered into in the course of Uruguay Round of GATT Negotiations). he pointed out. not satisfied that the circumstances pointed out by Shri Mukherjee and the experts. treaties involving financial burdens on the State. as it is now constituted. The executive still maintains its hold on certain types of treaties such as. with which aspect we are not concerned herein]. signed and ratified by the Government of India. (3) Important treaties are placed before the Parliament. Treaties of cession. The speech of Shri Pranab Mukherjee in Rajya Sabha and the opinion of jurists set out hereinabove bring out the opposing view to the one suggested by us hereinabove. agreements relating to technical matters. As part of this consideration. Reliance is based upon the following statement of Shri K. We are. can be implemented only by Parliament by making a law in terms of the agreement as provided by Entry 14 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read with article 253. He pointed out that even votes on account and budget demands involving thousands of crores of rupees are being passed without any discussion.
namely. In a democracy like ours. judiciary come into the picture. treaties establishing diplomatic relations. We must also mention that the difficulty pointed out by Shri Pranab Mukherjee in case certain treaties are referred to Parliament for approval. agreements and conventions). it . they cannot enter into any treaty or take any action towards its implementation which transgresses any of the constitutional limitations. This fact has also been taken note of in other countries as well which too has been pointed out here-in-before at the appropriate place. “open covenants openly arrived at”. as pointed out by the learned Member himself. They do not appear to have been vigilant in safeguarding our interests. The power of treaty-making is so important and has such far-reaching consequences to the people and to our polity that the element of accountability should be introduced into the process. (iv) Role of Judiciary in Treaty-making: 50. In particular. can be kept out of the purview of the proposed parliamentary committee as well. which will examine and determine which treaties/agreements/conventions should go before Parliament for fuller consideration and which need not go for such consideration. It needs no emphasis that whether it is the Union Executive or the Parliament. The said power can no doubt be given only to the Union Executive and none else but then the law must clearly delineate the exercise of the power. Indeed it is conceded by the said experts that WTO treaties signed in 1994 without obtaining Parliamentary approval [indeed in case of one agreement TRIPS contrary to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee attached to the Ministry of Commerce] have very grave impact upon the nation’s economy. The matter is better left to the parliamentary committee as suggested by us. at least in some instances.and every treaty. cannot be made the basis for denying the parliamentary scrutiny of such treaties. which have attracted national and international attention and do not establish a practice of the executive obtaining parliamentary approval. include the power to enter into agreements and the implementation of treaties. I am sure that if and when any such question is considered by the Supreme Court.B. it is not the prerogative (if we can use that expression) of the Executive. it may also be possible to say that broadly speaking. There is an urgent and real need to democratize the process of treaty making. I have already recorded my views on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in P. The law should regulate the ‘treaty-making power’ (which expression shall. We must also point out the very few examples given by experts where certain treaties were referred to Parliament before ratification are more political in nature. agreement and convention proposed to be entered into or signed by the Government of India. Besides accountability. to give an illustration. Even if such treaties are concluded by the Government without reference to the Parliament. its industry and its business – which are already being felt by the people of this country as mentioned here-in- before. Judiciary has no specific role in treaty-making as such but if and when a question arises whether a treaty concluded by the Union violates any of the Constitutional provisions. We have ourselves recognized this fact. Under our constitutional system. Part IV Recommendations: 51. it will be considered in greater depth. there is no room for non-accountability . the Parliament is entitled to discuss those treaties and reject them if they so choose. the exercise of power must be open and transparent (except where secrecy is called for in national interest) – what was called by President Wilson of USA. agreements and conventions with foreign countries” as contemplated by Entry 14 of List 1 of the seventh Schedule to the constitution. for the purpose of this discussion. The latter category of treaties can be entered into by the government of its own. We have indeed suggested for a small parliamentary committee. In fact. its agriculture. Samant. It is a matter within the competence of Parliament and it should exercise that power in the interest of the State and its citizens. But it is not possible to lay down any such general categorization. We may have already suffered enough by entrusting that power exclusively to the Executive. treaties of extradition. The first thing that should be done by Parliament is to make a law on the subject of “entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties.
(e. As has been done in some countries. The law made by Parliament must also provide for consultation with affected group of persons. As a matter of fact. organizations and stake-holders. a statement setting out the important features of the treaty/agreement. multi-lateral treaties concerning trade. or jointly. (c) important. should be clearly and fully set out. Here again. The members once elected shall continue in the committee for the duration of the life of the House or the cessation of their membership. the impact of the treaty/agreement upon our country and upon our citizens. as the case may be. of course. services.must provide for clear and meaningful involvement of Parliament in treaty-making. etc. reasons for which such treaty/agreement is proposed to be entered into. This would go to democratize further the process of treaty making. a special procedure may be provided. there must be constituted a committee of Parliament to whom every treaty/agreement/convention proposed to be signed and/or proposed to be ratified shall be referred. The committee would be a statutory committee clothed. with all the powers of a Parliamentary Committee. a sub- categorisation can be attempted: Some treaties may be made subject to approval by default (laying on the table of the House for a particular period) and others which must be made subject to a positive approval by way of a resolution. where a treaty etc. recent Uruguay round of treaties/agreements signed in 1994 at Marrakesh). (b) those treaties etc. as the case may be. subject to subsequent Parliamentary approval consistent with the requirements of secrecy.. (a) those that the executive can negotiate and conclude on its own and then place the same before both Houses of Parliament by way of information. They must be elected by both the Houses separately. 53. Of course. in general. which the executive can negotiate and sign but shall not ratify until they are approved by the Parliament. The committee must decide within four weeks of such reference whether the treaty should be allowed to be signed by the Union Executive without referring the matter for consideration to Parliament or whether it should be referred to Parliament for consideration. The committee should not have too many members. calls for secrecy. or has to be concluded urgently. investment. . It is obvious that such a decision shall have to be taken having regard to the nature of the particular treaty/agreement and its impact upon our country or on the rights of our citizens. where the Parliament must be involved even at the stage of negotiation. In this category may be included simple bilateral treaties and agreements which do not affect the economy or the rights of the citizens. it would equally be desirable if the law made by the Parliament categories the treaties/agreements/conventions/covenants viz. About 10 to 15 would be adequate but they must be drawn from all political parties in Parliament. While placing the draft/signed treaty before such committee.g. 52.
Should a consultation process be made obligatory with both governmental and non- governmental experts in the field. Have you any suggestions to make on any of the issues dealt with in the Consultation Paper particularly with respect to the question how to make the treaty-making power subserve and promote the nation’s interest? If so. . on the question of Executive’s power to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign powers and its power to sign/ratify international conventions and covenants.K. in what respects? 5. concluded by the Executive shall have any force of law within the territory of India and that no rights or entitlements can be founded upon such treaty by any one? 4. the use of the word “also” in the said proviso indicates that the executive power of the Union may not be available even with respect to matters within the Concurrent List. Do you support the proposal to amend Article 253 by inserting a new clause – clause (2) – providing expressly that no treaty etc. (a) Do you agree with the proposition that entry 14 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 253 marks a departure from the Law obtaining in U.  Arthur Dunkel was the chairman of the Uruguay Round of GATTA negotiations until he was replaced in 1993- 94. (a) Do you support the proposal that the Parliament should enact a law clearly laying down the powers of the Executive in the matter of treaty-making? (The expression “treaty-making” includes entering into agreements with foreign powers as well as ratifying international conventions and covenants. QUESTIONNAIRE ON TREATY-MAKING POWER UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION 1.) (b) Or whether it is not advisable to enact any such law taking into consideration the possibility of problems being created by one or more States if their consent/concurrence is made necessary? (c) Whether the control of Parliament be restricted only to treaties/agreements affecting the national economy? 3. # Indeed. Do you agree with the ‘Recommendations’ at pages 42 to 44 of the Consultation Paper? If not. (b) Is the Union Executive entitled to enter into a treaty affecting the matters mentioned in the State List (List II) and Concurrent List (List III) in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution without being empowered by Parliament by making a law as contemplated by the proviso to clause (1) of Article 73 and/or without the consent of the concerned State Legislatures? (c) Whether the present position should remain unchanged? 2. before the Government signs/ratifies a treaty/agreement? 6. please state them.

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.