The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to compel the Indian government to cease arms and military equipment exports to Israel amidst ongoing conflict in Gaza. The bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ruled that such decisions fall strictly within the domain of national foreign policy, a realm where the judiciary does not intervene.
The PIL, advocated by lawyer Prashant Bhushan on behalf of petitioner Ashok Kumar Sharma, argued for the cessation of arms exports by Indian companies to Israel, suggesting that continuing such exports might contravene international law, specifically referencing the UN’s genocide convention. However, the Chief Justice emphasized the complexity of foreign policy and the potential legal repercussions of breaching existing contracts with Israeli entities.
The court highlighted the broader implications of such a directive, pointing out that interfering with the government’s policy decisions could lead to significant diplomatic and contractual complications. Chief Justice Chandrachud expressed concern about the potential impacts on India’s foreign relations, stating, “Can we direct that under the UN’s genocide convention you ban the export to Israel…why this restraint. This is because it impacts the foreign policy and we do not know what the impact will be.”
The dismissal of this PIL underscores the judiciary’s stance on maintaining a clear separation between government policy-making, particularly in matters of international relations and national security, and judicial oversight.
