Article 253 of the Constitution of India

Article 253 of the Constitution of India: Parliamentary Supremacy in Implementing International Obligations

Introduction

Article 253 of the Constitution of India stands as a pivotal provision that empowers the Parliament of India to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement, or convention with any other country or countries, or any decision made at any international conference, association, or other body. The significance of this Article is underscored by its non-obstante clause, "Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter," which grants Parliament an overriding legislative competence, even on matters enumerated in the State List (List II of the Seventh Schedule), if such legislation is necessary to give effect to India's international commitments. This provision is instrumental in enabling India to participate effectively in the global legal order, ensuring that its international obligations can be translated into domestic law. This article analyses the scope, judicial interpretation, and implications of Article 253, drawing upon key constitutional provisions and relevant case law.

Constitutional Scheme: Distribution of Legislative Powers and the Role of Article 253

The Constitution of India delineates a federal structure with a clear distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States. Article 245 defines the territorial extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States, while Article 246, read with the Seventh Schedule, distributes legislative subjects into three lists: List I (Union List), List II (State List), and List III (Concurrent List) (President Of India v. Berubari Union Exchange Of Enclaves, 1959 [Ref 15]). Typically, Parliament has exclusive power over List I, State Legislatures over List II, and both can legislate on List III, with Union law prevailing in case of repugnancy (Article 254).

Article 253 carves out a specific domain for parliamentary legislative supremacy. As observed by Shah, J. in his concurring judgment in Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel Etc. v. Union Of India And Another (1969) [Ref 1, 8], "The effect of Art.253 is that if a treaty, agreement or convention with a foreign state deals with a subject within the competence of the State Legislature, the Parliament alone has, notwithstanding Article 246(3), the power to make laws to implement the treaty, agreement or convention or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body. In terms, the Article deals with legislative power: thereby power is conferred upon the Parliament which it may not otherwise possess." This power is distinct from Parliament's residuary legislative powers under Article 248 (Union Of India v. Shri Harbhajan Singh Dhillon, 1971 [Ref 6]), as Article 253 is specifically geared towards the implementation of international law.

The executive power of the Union, under Article 73(1), extends to matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws, and also to the exercise of rights, authority, and jurisdiction exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement (President Of India v. Berubari Union Exchange Of Enclaves, 1959 [Ref 15]; P.B Samant And Others… v. Union Of India And Another…, 1994 [Ref 23]). However, the necessity of legislation under Article 253, as opposed to mere executive action, depends on whether the implementation of an international agreement requires alteration of existing domestic law or affects the rights of individuals (Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel Etc. v. Union Of India And Another, 1969 [Ref 1]).

Judicial Interpretation and Application of Article 253

The judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting the scope and application of Article 253, affirming Parliament's broad powers while navigating its implications for India's federal structure.

Scope and Ambit: Overriding Power of Parliament

The Supreme Court in Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel Etc. v. Union Of India And Another (1969) [Ref 1, 8, 24] acknowledged the expansive nature of Parliament's power under Article 253 to legislate on any matter, including those in the State List, for the purpose of implementing international obligations. The wide ambit of the phrase "any decision made at any international conference, association or other body" was significantly highlighted in S. Jagannath v. Union Of India And Others (1996) [Ref 18]. In this case, the Court upheld the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which was enacted, inter alia, under Article 253 to implement the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972. The Court explicitly stated that the Act, being a Central legislation enacted under Entry 13 of List I read with Article 253, and the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification issued thereunder, shall have an overriding effect and prevail over laws made by State legislatures if inconsistent.

More recently, the question of whether the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which gives effect to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, was enacted under Article 253, and the consequent impact on State legislative competence, was discussed in Secretary To Govt. Of Kerala, Irrigation Department And Others (S) v. James Varghese And Others (S) (2022) [Ref 12, 24, 25]. Arguments were advanced that a law passed under Article 253 would denude the State Legislature of its competence to make any law on the same subject matter, regardless of whether the subject matter falls in List II or List III.

Specific Enactments under Article 253

Several important Union statutes have been enacted by Parliament invoking its powers under Article 253, demonstrating its practical application:

  • The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Enacted to implement decisions from the Stockholm Conference (S. Jagannath v. Union Of India And Others, 1996 [Ref 18]).
  • The Carriage by Air Act, 1972: Enacted to give effect to the Warsaw Convention of 1929, as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955, and the Montreal Convention of 1999 (British Airways v. Gems Art Factory, 2014 [Ref 19]).
  • The Foreign Aircraft (Exemption from Taxes and Duties on Fuel and Lubricants) Act, 2002: Enacted to give effect to international agreements concerning exemption of taxes on fuel supplied to foreign aircraft (M S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. Commissioner Of Central Excise, 2013 [Ref 21]).
  • The Tea Act, 1953: A minority view in State Of W.B v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Others (2004) [Ref 7], as noted in Secretary To Govt. Of Kerala v. James Varghese (2022) [Ref 12], suggested that Parliament, in enacting the Tea Act, exercised its superior power, potentially under Article 253.

Article 253 and State Legislative Powers: Repugnancy and Federalism

The non-obstante clause in Article 253 gives parliamentary legislation enacted under it a dominant position. In case of a conflict between a law made by Parliament under Article 253 and a State law, the parliamentary law will prevail, even if the subject matter falls within the State List. This modifies the usual operation of Article 254, which deals with repugnancy between Union and State laws on Concurrent List matters. While this ensures that India can meet its international obligations uniformly, it also raises considerations regarding the federal balance and the legislative autonomy of States. The judiciary often has to balance these competing interests.

International Law's Influence and Judicial Activism

The Indian judiciary has also shown a proactive approach in incorporating international legal principles into domestic jurisprudence, especially in the realm of human rights. In the landmark case of Vishaka And Others v. State Of Rajasthan And Others (1997) [Ref 3, 17], the Supreme Court, in the absence of domestic legislation, formulated binding guidelines to address sexual harassment at the workplace, drawing heavily from international conventions such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). While this was an instance of judicial law-making to fill a legislative void, Article 253 provides the constitutional pathway for Parliament to formally legislate on such matters to implement international norms (See also Legal Literacy Council v. Kerala Union Of Working Journalists, 2021 [Ref 14]; Chandrapal Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another, 2023 [Ref 17]). The principle of interpreting domestic laws, where possible, in harmony with international law and conventions has also been affirmed (Gramophone Company Of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey And Others, 1984 [Ref 2]). The contemporary invocation of Article 253 to seek enforcement of socio-economic rights based on ratified international conventions is evident in cases like PRERNA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY (2024) [Ref 22].

Executive Power and Treaty Implementation

Article 73(1)(b) of the Constitution states that the executive power of the Union extends to the exercise of such rights, authority, and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement. In Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel Etc. v. Union Of India And Another (1969) [Ref 1], the Supreme Court clarified that while the executive can enter into treaties, legislation under Article 253 would be required if the treaty necessitates a modification of domestic law or affects the rights of citizens. For instance, mere boundary demarcation pursuant to an international award might be an executive act, but cession of territory would require a constitutional amendment, and other forms of treaty implementation might require parliamentary legislation. The relationship between executive orders and the need for legislation under Article 253 for implementing international agreements like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was also a subject of inquiry before the Central Information Commission in Dileep Nevatia v. M/O Law And Justice (2014) [Ref 20].

Challenges and Considerations

The exercise of legislative power under Article 253, while crucial, presents certain challenges and considerations:

  • Defining "Decision": The scope of "any decision made at any international conference, association or other body" is broad. The threshold for what constitutes a "decision" capable of triggering parliamentary action under Article 253, especially if non-binding, requires careful consideration, although S. Jagannath (1996) [Ref 18] suggests a wide interpretation.
  • Federal Balance: The overriding power of Parliament under Article 253 can impact the legislative domain of States. A judicious approach is necessary to ensure that international commitments are met without unduly undermining the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution.
  • Democratic Scrutiny: Laws enacted under Article 253, particularly those dealing with complex international instruments or encroaching upon State subjects, require thorough parliamentary debate and scrutiny to ensure democratic legitimacy and effective implementation.
  • Extra-territoriality: Laws made to implement international agreements may sometimes have extra-territorial implications, which must align with the principles governing extra-territorial jurisdiction under Article 245(2) (Gvk Industries Limited And Another v. Income Tax Officer And Another, 2011 [Ref 13]).

Conclusion

Article 253 of the Constitution of India is a vital provision that equips the Union Parliament with the necessary legislative authority to ensure India's compliance with its international obligations. It underscores the principle that national sovereignty, in an increasingly interconnected world, involves active participation in and adherence to the international legal framework. The judiciary, through its interpretations, has largely affirmed the broad scope of this power, enabling Parliament to legislate on diverse subjects, including those ordinarily within the purview of State legislatures, to give effect to international treaties, agreements, conventions, and decisions.

While Article 253 reinforces parliamentary supremacy in the domain of international law implementation, its application necessitates a careful balancing of national interests, federal principles, and the imperatives of international cooperation. As India continues to play a significant role on the global stage, Article 253 will undoubtedly remain a cornerstone of its constitutional mechanism for integrating international law into its domestic legal system, thereby fostering a harmonious relationship between national and international jurisprudence.