The Supreme Court dismissed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which sought the cancellation of licenses granted to companies exporting arms to Israel. The Court concluded that matters relating to foreign policy, international relations, and international contracts are not amenable to judicial review under Article 32. It highlighted that such issues fall within the domain of the Union Government under Articles 73 and 253 of the Constitution. The Court also emphasized the need for self-restraint in adjudicating on foreign policy matters.

1. Petitioners

The petitioners, including former civil servants, scholars, activists, and experts in various fields, invoked Article 32 of the Constitution. They sought the cancellation of existing arms export licenses and halting new licenses to Indian companies supplying military equipment to Israel.

2. Grounds of the Petition

The petitioners claimed that India, by allowing arms exports to Israel, is violating international law obligations and constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 21, and 51(c). They also cited rulings of the International Court of Justice on Israel's actions in Palestine and argued that such arms supply would be complicit with violations of the Genocide Convention.

3. Key Submissions

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, argued that India is bound by treaties that prohibit supplying arms to nations accused of war crimes and genocide, specifically in the context of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

4. Court’s Observations

• Foreign Policy Domain: The Court ruled that matters of foreign policy are vested with the Union Government under Article 73. It is beyond the Court's jurisdiction to intervene in the conduct of foreign affairs.
• Sovereignty of Israel: The Court noted that Israel, being a sovereign nation, cannot be subjected to its jurisdiction, and the Court cannot make findings on allegations against a foreign state.
• International Contracts: Any judicial intervention in cancelling export licenses would affect international contracts, leading to potential damages to Indian companies.
• Union Government’s Discretion: The Court held that the Union Government has adequate statutory powers under the Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Act and the Customs Act to act in cases involving national interests.

5. Outcome

The Court dismissed the petition, stating that it cannot issue a writ under Article 32 to cancel export licenses related to foreign affairs. The Court also disposed of pending applications for intervention or impleadment.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Article 32 of the Constitution: Petitioners invoked this for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 73 of the Constitution: Relates to the Union Government’s powers over matters of foreign affairs.
• Article 253 of the Constitution: Grants Parliament the power to implement international treaties.
• Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Act: The Act under which export restrictions can be imposed.
• Customs Act, 1962: Provides for regulatory control over foreign trade.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court held that issues concerning foreign policy, international treaties, and contracts fall squarely within the Union Government's discretion and are not subject to judicial review. The Court reaffirmed the principle of self-restraint in matters involving foreign affairs and international relations, noting the absence of jurisdiction over sovereign states like Israel.

Subject: Foreign Policy, Judicial Review, International Law, Arms Export Article 32, Article 73, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Arms Export, Supreme Court of India, Genocide Convention, International Relations, Indian Constitution