Supreme Court dismisses PIL to halt supply of arms by India to Israel

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the continued supply of arms by Indian companies to Israel amidst its conflict with Palestine [Ashok Kumar and ors v Union of India]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra questioned the Court's jurisdiction to intervene in foreign policy matters, highlighting that such decisions traditionally fall within the domain of the government.The Court further noted that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has not specifically labelled Israel's actions as genocide. The Bench added that any observations by the Court could impact the foreign policy of the Indian government. "Foreign policy is the subject matter of the foreign policy of the government. Where do we get the jurisdiction to intervene in such a scenario? ICJ did not say that Israel committed genocide ... Any observation by us will impact the foreign policy of the government of the day," the Court said..The petition was filed by former bureaucrats, senior academics, and activists challenging the continued supply of arms by Indian companies to Israel amidst its conflict with Palestine.The petitioners contended that the same violated international law and the constitutional mandate.The petitioners had urged the Court to order the Union government to cancel existing licences and permissions, and halt the grant of new ones, to various companies in India that were exporting weapons to Israel."Any supply of arms and munitions to the State of Israel by India is morally unconscionable and legally and constitutionally unsustainable," the plea had said..Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioners today and cited rulings by the ICJ and United Nations bodies condemning Israel's actions in Gaza. He argued that India's arms supply to Israel contributes to these alleged violations of rights.He further argued that since India has ratified the Genocide Convention, its provisions should be read as part of municipal law, and therefore, the Court should intervene..The Court countered that while international law is presumed to be part of national law, applying it in this context would require legislative action, which the Parliament of India has not undertaken.Justice Pardiwala emphasized that it was the petitioners' assumption that the arms were being used for genocide. "It is your assumption that arms are being used for genocide ... It is a delicate issue and courts should not interfere ... What about contractual obligations?" he remarked.Bhushan persisted, referring to reports from UN bodies and the ICJ on Israel's actions, including reports on the bombing of hospitals and aid workers.He argued that it was the constitutional duty of the court to interpret Indian laws in alignment with international human rights conventions. However, the Bench remained unconvinced."We are an exporter and not just an importer of capital. Suppose India is saddled with breach of contract damages and now since we injuncted it ... imagine how arbitration proceedings will pan out. Conduct of foreign policy the court cannot interfere," the Court said..Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta argued that the decision to classify acts as aggression or defence falls squarely within the executive's domain and should not be dictated by the Court.Ultimately, the Court rejected the PIL plea, stating that it would be intruding into the government's sovereign conduct of foreign policy if it were to issue any direction to halt arms supply. It noted that while international law forms part of national law, the judiciary cannot direct the government to ban arms exports without breaching international obligations or interfering with contractual obligations..[Read Order].[Read Live Coverage]