---
title: "India and International Law: Article 51 and Treaties"
description: "India follows a dualist approach to international law under Article 51; learn its treaty-making power, the transformation rule and key Supreme Court doctrine"
url: "https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/lessons/exam-international-law-india-and-international-law-treaty-practice-article-51"
---

[New](https://modeldiplomat.com/)

India and international law (treaty practice, Article 51)

Read 1 of 3

1/70 XP so far this lesson

Lesson 18 min 20 XP

# India and international law (treaty practice, Article 51)

India's constitutional handling of international law: Article 51, treaty-making power, the dualist transformation rule, and key Supreme Court doctrine.

## The constitutional foundation

India's engagement with international law rests on a small but decisive cluster of constitutional provisions. **Article 51** of the Directive Principles of State Policy directs the State to "endeavour to (a) promote international peace and security; (b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations; (c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations; and (d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration." Being a Directive Principle, Article 51 is non-justiciable under **Article 37** — it cannot be enforced by any court — yet it is "fundamental in the governance of the country" and operates as an interpretive guide.

The power to *conduct* foreign affairs and *make* treaties is executive. **Article 73** extends the Union's executive power to matters on which Parliament can legislate, and **Entries 10–14 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule)** — covering foreign affairs, treaties and agreements with foreign countries, war and peace, diplomatic and UN relations, and implementing treaties — place treaty-making squarely with the Union Executive. Critically, **Entry 14** empowers Parliament to legislate to give effect to treaties. India therefore requires *no prior parliamentary ratification* to conclude a treaty: the President (acting through the Council of Ministers under Article 53 read with Article 74) binds India at the international plane.

## Dualism: the transformation rule

India follows a **dualist** tradition inherited from English common law. A treaty validly concluded binds India internationally but does **not automatically become enforceable municipal law**. It must be "transformed" by enabling legislation before courts will apply it against citizens. The Supreme Court affirmed this in *Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India* (1969) — upholding the Kutch boundary award — and in *Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin* (1980), holding that the ICCPR did not by itself override domestic civil-imprisonment law.

Where a treaty obligation does not contradict any statute and does not require fresh legislation, the executive may implement it directly. But where rights or duties of citizens are affected, Parliament must legislate — hence statutes such as the **Geneva Conventions Act, 1960**, the **Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972**, the **Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982/2016**, and the **Chemical Weapons Convention Act, 2000**.

## The judicial bridge

The gap between unincorporated treaties and domestic law has been narrowed by interpretation. In *Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan* (1997), the Court drew directly on **CEDAW (1979)** to frame binding guidelines against workplace sexual harassment, holding that international conventions consistent with fundamental rights "must be read into" Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21. *Gramophone Co. of India v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey* (1984) held that customary international law forms part of Indian law unless it conflicts with a statute. *People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India* (1997) and *NALSA v. Union of India* (2014) deepened this harmonious-construction approach, importing the Yogyakarta Principles and ICCPR standards through Article 21.

One question, then back to the lesson

Ask about this lesson