The Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition seeking an immediate suspension of military aid to Israel on Monday. The plea, filed by a group of retired public servants, scholars, and activists, sought to halt the supply of weapons by Indian companies to Israel amidst its ongoing conflict in Gaza.
Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, heading the bench, stated that decisions on such matters fall under the government’s purview and involve complex economic and geopolitical considerations. The court emphasized that Indian companies have contractual obligations that cannot be overridden by judicial orders.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that India, having ratified the Genocide Convention, is bound by international law to avoid supplying arms to nations engaged in genocide. The petitioners claimed that Israel’s actions, including attacks on civilian infrastructure like schools and hospitals, violate this convention.
The court, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted that the petition’s request would interfere with India’s foreign policy and international contracts. The bench drew parallels with other international issues, such as India’s oil imports from Russia, and cautioned against judicial intervention in foreign policy matters.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the petitioners’ use of terms like “genocide” might not align with diplomatic discourse. He argued that the court’s involvement could imply endorsement of the petitioners’ claims.
The court reaffirmed that Parliament has the authority to implement international treaties and that judicial review in this context might be unwarranted. The petitioners, led by former diplomat Ashok Kumar Sharma and economist Jean Dreze, had sought to cancel licenses for Indian companies to export military equipment to Israel, citing potential violations of constitutional and international obligations.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently ordered provisional measures against Israel for alleged violations of the Genocide Convention, but the Indian Supreme Court ruled that such matters should be addressed through diplomatic and legislative channels rather than judicial intervention.
Leave a Reply