Fostering Respect: The Judicial Invocation of Article 51(c) in Indian Law

Introduction

Nestled within Part IV of the Constitution of India, among the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), lies Article 51(c). It mandates that "The State shall endeavour to... foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another." While Directive Principles are not directly enforceable by any court, they are declared "fundamental in the governance of the country" (Article 37), imposing a duty upon the State to apply these principles in making laws. Historically viewed as subordinate to enforceable Fundamental Rights, the judicial interpretation of Article 51(c) has charted a remarkable trajectory. It has evolved from a mere statement of policy into a potent interpretive tool, acting as a constitutional conduit for harmonizing India's domestic legal framework with its international commitments. This article analyzes the jurisprudential application of Article 51(c), demonstrating how the Indian judiciary has leveraged this provision to interpret statutes, fill legislative voids, and expand the horizons of fundamental rights.

The Constitutional Framework: Dualism and the Role of Directive Principles

India's constitutional approach to international law is largely rooted in the doctrine of dualism, which posits that international law and municipal (domestic) law are two distinct legal orders. Consequently, international treaties do not automatically become part of domestic law upon ratification. For a treaty to be binding within the domestic legal sphere, Parliament must enact enabling legislation under Article 253 of the Constitution. However, this formal requirement does not render international law irrelevant in the absence of such legislation. The judiciary, guided by the constitutional ethos, has carved out a significant role for international law, particularly through the interpretive lens of Article 51(c).

The Supreme Court has progressively moved towards establishing a harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV), viewing them as "two wheels of a chariot, one no less important than the other" (Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union Of India, 1980, as cited in PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2024). This perspective, cemented in the landmark case of His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State Of Kerala (1973), empowers the judiciary to use DPSPs as a guide for interpreting both the Constitution and ordinary statutes. Within this context, Article 51(c) serves as a specific constitutional directive to the judiciary, as an organ of the State, to interpret laws in a manner that fosters respect for international law and treaty obligations.

Judicial Application of Article 51(c): From Interpretation to Enforcement

The influence of Article 51(c) is most profoundly observed in three distinct domains: the harmonization of domestic statutes with international obligations, the protection of fundamental rights by filling legislative gaps, and the judicial consideration of unratified treaties.

Harmonizing Domestic Statutes with International Obligations

The judiciary has consistently held that in the absence of any conflict between domestic and international law, Indian courts will interpret domestic statutes to align with international conventions. As articulated in National Legal Services Authority v. Union Of India (2014), "in the absence of a contrary legislation, municipal courts in India would respect the rules of international law." Article 51(c) provides the constitutional foundation for this interpretive rule.

This principle finds robust application in commercial and trade law. In Commissioner Of Customs, Bangalore v. G.M. Exports And Others (2015), the Supreme Court, while dealing with anti-dumping duties, explicitly cited Article 51(c) to underscore the importance of interpreting the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, in a manner consistent with India's obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Similarly, in the context of intellectual property, the Court in Gramophone Company Of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey (1984) interpreted the term "import" under the Copyright Act, 1957, by referring to international transit trade conventions, thereby harmonizing domestic law with international comity. This trend is also evident in tax jurisprudence, where tribunals have repeatedly held that the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the domestic Income Tax Act, citing Article 51(c) and Article 253 as the legal basis for upholding treaty obligations (SANJEEV AGRAWAL, JAIPUR v. DCIT, 2023; Sunkesulapati Sumanth, Bangalore v. ITO, 2022).

Filling Legislative Voids and Protecting Fundamental Rights

The most dynamic application of Article 51(c) has been in the realm of human rights. The judiciary has used it as a powerful tool to breathe life into the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III, particularly Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), by importing principles from international human rights conventions.

The locus classicus is Vishaka And Others v. State Of Rajasthan (1997). Faced with a legislative vacuum on the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace, the Supreme Court drew directly from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) to formulate legally binding guidelines. The Court justified this act of judicial legislation by stating that any international convention consistent with fundamental rights and promoting their objective must be read into those provisions, especially when there is a void in domestic law. This principle was later reinforced in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K Chopra (1999).

Another seminal judgment is Jolly George Varghese And Another v. The Bank Of Cochin (1980). Here, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer interpreted Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in light of Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits imprisonment merely for the inability to fulfill a contractual obligation. He explicitly invoked Article 51(c) as the "obligat[ion of] the State to 'foster respect for international law and treaty obligations'", thereby reading down the statutory provision to prevent the incarceration of honest, but indigent, debtors. This line of reasoning was affirmed in subsequent High Court judgments (Kishorbhai Narayandas Maherchandani v. State Of Gujarat, 2019).

Furthermore, in Chairman, Railway Board And Others v. Chandrima Das (2000), the Supreme Court extended the protection of Article 21 to a foreign national who was a victim of rape, referencing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to underscore that constitutional interpretation should be informed by universal human rights principles.

The Status of Unratified Treaties and Customary International Law

The judiciary has also cautiously extended the spirit of Article 51(c) to situations involving unratified treaties, particularly concerning human rights. In NEPAL DAS AND 3 ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. (2022), the Gauhati High Court observed that even though India has not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention, the obligation under Article 51(c) to "foster respect" for international law remains. This suggests that the principles enshrined in widely accepted international instruments can influence judicial interpretation, especially when fundamental human rights are at stake, reflecting a respect for principles of customary international law.

Conclusion

Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India exemplifies the dynamic and transformative potential of Directive Principles. Through purposive judicial interpretation, it has transcended its non-enforceable character to become a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence concerning the interplay between domestic and international law. The judiciary has adeptly used this provision to ensure that India's domestic legal order does not operate in isolation. By harmonizing statutes with treaty obligations in areas like trade and taxation, and more significantly, by enriching the content of fundamental rights with international human rights norms, the courts have fulfilled the constitutional mandate to "foster respect for international law." Article 51(c) thus serves as a vital constitutional bridge, ensuring that Indian law remains responsive to global legal developments and committed to the universal values of justice and human dignity.