Publ

i
cInt
ernat
ional
LawCases(
1to18)
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
Reparat
ionforI
njur
iesSuf
fer
edi
ntheSer
viceoft
he
Unit
edNat i
onsCase
FactandI
ssue-whetherUni
tedNat
ionscancl
aim compensat
ionanddamagesf
or
organi
zati
onandthepersonsappoi
ntedunderit
sserv
ice.Fur
ther
,inwhatmannertheact
ion
takenbytheUni
tedNationscoul
dber econci
l
edwit
hsuchr i
ghtsasmightbepossessedbythe
Stateofwhicht
hevict
im wasanati
onal.

Deci
sion-TheCourthel
dthatt
heU.
N.hadt
hecapaci
tyt
obr
ingacl
aim andt
ogi
vei
tthe
characterofani nt
ernationalactionforreparati
onf orthedamaget hathadbeencausedt oi
t.
Theor ganizati
oncancl aimr eparati
onnotonl yinr espectofdamagecausedt oit
self,butal
soin
respectofdamagesuf feredbyt hev i
cti
m per sonsent i
tl
edthroughhi m.Theri
skofpossible
compet it
ionbetweent heor ganizati
onandt hev icti
m’snationalStatecoul
dbeeli
mi natedbya
generalconv ent
ionorbyapar ti
cularagreementi nanyindivi
dualcase.

Theresponsi
bleStat
e(Israel)pai
dt hecompensat i
onforthedeat
hofaFr enchobserverand
oneotherper
sononaccountofmobv i
olence,butref
usedtoacceptanyobl i
gati
onunderlawin
thi
sconnecti
on.Thusthel egalposi
tioni
st hataStateisr
esponsibl
eforinjuri
escausedinit
s
ter
ri
tor
ytopersonsservingt heU.N.oranyot heri
nter
nati
onalor
ganizat
ion.

Lot
usCase(
Francev
.Tur
key)
(1927)
FactandI
ssue-Thei
ssueathandconcer
nedacol
l
isi
onont
hehi
ghseas(
wher
e
i
nternat
ionall
awappli
es)betweent heLotus,
aFr enchship,andtheBoz-Kourt,aTurki
shship.
Several
peopleaboar
dthelattershipweredrownedandTur keyallegednegli
gencebyt he
Frenchoffi
ceroft
hewatch.Whent heLot
usreachedI st
anbul,t
heFr enchof
ficerwasar r
est
ed
onachar geofmansl
aughterandt hecaseturnedonwhet herTurkeyhadjuri
sdicti
ontotryhim.

Deci
sion-Thecourthel
dthatnosuchcust
omar
yrul
ewasest
abl
i
shedbecauseopi
nioj
uri
s
couldnotbeproved.Thecourtexpl
ainedthatev
enifthefactsall
egedbyFr anceweretr
ue,t
hey
wouldmer el
yshowt hatSt
ateshadof t
en,i
npracti
ce,abst
ainedfrom i
nsti
tuti
ngcrimi
nal
proceedi
ngs,andnotthattheyr
ecognisedthemselv
esasbei ngobli
gedtodoso.I twoul
dbe
possibl
etospeakofani nt
ernat
ionalcust
om onlyi
fsuchabst ent
ionoftheStatewerebasedon
t
hei
rbei
ngconsci
ousofhav
ingadut
ytoabst
ain

Thecour t
,therefor
e, ar
ri
vedtotheconclusi
onthatther
ewasnor ul
eofint
ernati
onall
awin
regardtocolli
sioncasest ot
heef f
ectthatcr
imi
nalproceedi
ngswereexcl
usivel
ywit
hint
he
j
urisdi
cti
onoft heSt atewhoseflagtheshipwasfly
ingand.t
heref
ore,
eachStatecoul
dexerci
se
j
urisdi
cti
oni nrespectoftheinci
dent.

Lot
uscasehasbeenov
err
uledbyt
heGenev
aConv
ent
iononLawofSea,
1958.

Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
Nor
thSeaCont
inent
alShel
fCases,
1969
FactandI
ssue-adi
sput
ebet
weenGer
manyont
heonehandandHol
l
andandDenmar
k
ontheotherov
erthedelimi
tationoftheconti
nent
alshel
f.concer
ningthedel
i
mi t
ati
onof
boundar
iesofthei
rrespect
ivecom intal
shel
ves.Arul
ewassoughtt obeimposedupon
Germanywhowassi gnator
yt othetreat
yinquest
ionbuthasnotrat
if
iedit
.

Deci
sion-theWorl
dCour
tobser
vedt
hat“
thepassageofonl
yashor
tti
meper
iodi
snot
necessar
il
yabart otheformationofanewcust omar yinter
nati
onall
aw.“general
lyStatesthat
donotsignandr at
if
yani nt
ernati
onalconventi
onar enotboundbyi t
sterms.Butt hereisalways
apossibi
li
tyt
hatapr ovi
sioninat r
eatymayconst i
tutethebasisofarul
ewhi chifcoupl edwit
h
opini
ojuri
scanleadtothef or
mat i
onofabi ndi
ng‘custom’ gover
ningal
lStates,evennon-
member stoi
t”.Thus,t
hiscasei mpli
esthatatreat
ycanbei nv
okedagainstaSt atewhohas
si
gnedbuthasnotr ati
fi
edit,i
fthetreat
ydeclaresacust omaryrul
eofinternat
ionallaw.

Atareservati
onwouldbenullandv oi
di fi
twerecontr
arytoanessenti
alprinci
pleofCont
inent
al
Shel
finsti
tut
ionwhichmustber ecognisedasjuscogens.Thecourtappli
edequityasan
i
nter
pretati
veinstr
umentbytaki
ngi nt
oaccounttheparti
cularci
rcumstancesofthesit
uat
ion
andtherebyavoidedi
nequi
ti
esresulti
ngf r
om gener
alrul
es.

i
twasheldt hatArt
.6oft heGenevaConv enti
onont heConti
nentalShel
f,1958contai
ningt
he
rul
eofequidist
anceforthedeli
mitat
ionsofcont i
nental
shelfcommont oadjacentStat
es,was
notopposable’t
oGermanywhi chhadnotr atif
iedtheConventi
on.Butinasubsequentcase,i
fa
Stat
ewhichhadr ati
fi
edtheConv ent
ionincludi
ngAr t
.6withoutreser
vati
on,Art
.6wouldbe
‘
opposable’tosuchaState.

“Theri
ght
soft hecoastalStat
esinrespectoft
heareaofcont
inental
shelft
hatconstit
utesof
natur
alpr
olongati
onofitslandterr
it
oryint
oandundertheseaexisti
psofactoandabi ni
tioby
vir
tueofi
tssoverei
gntyovertheland,andasanext
ensionofi
tinexerci
seofsov er
eignright
s
forthepurposeofexpl
ori
ngt
heseabedandexpl
oit
ingi
tsnat
ural
resour
ces.I
nshor
t,t
her
eis
hereaninherentr
ight
.

Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
RightofPassageoverI
ndi
anTer
ri
tor
y(Mer
it
s)
(Port
ugalv.I
ndia)
,1960
FactandI
ssue-Thi
scasedeal
swi
tht
hequest
ionr
elat
ingt
other
ightofPor
tugal
tosend
i
tsnat
ional
sandmi
l
itar
ythr
ought
heI
ndi
ant
err
it
ory
.

Until1954,Port
ugal possessedt herightofpassaget hr oughI ndianterr
it
ory;therightwas,
howev er,
subjecttocont rolandr egulati
onbyI ndia.Ther i
ghtofpassagewasonl yinrespectof
priv
atepersons,civi
l offi
cialsandgoodsi ngeneral,tot heext entnecessaryfortheexer ci
seof
i
ts( Port
ugese)sover eignty-overthePor t
ugeseencl av es.In1953- 54,becauseoft ension
createdbytheov ert
hr owofPor t
ugeser uleintheencl av es,theIndianGovernmentsuspended
ther i
ghtofpassageofPor t
ugalov ertheaffectedarea, inview' ofreper
cussionsov ertheborder
areasofIndianterr
itory '
.

Deci
sion-TheCourtfoundthatthereexi
stedaconst
antanduni
for
m pr
act
iceofal
l
owi
ng
passagethroughI
ndianterr
it
ory(Damananditsenclaves).Thetreat
yof1979wasav al
i
dtr
eat
y
andPortugalwasentit
ledtogetpassaget
hroughIndianterri
tor
yinconsequenceoft
he
provi
si
onsofsaidtreaty.

TheCour tr ul
edt hatifunderat reatyaStategetst herightofpassaget hroughtheterrit
oryof
anotherSt ateandi fi
tcont i
nuesf oralongt i
me, thenitgai nstheforceoflawandt hereby
i
mposest heobl i
gat i
onupont heStateaffectedt ocontinuet ogiver
ightofsuchpassage.The
Courtfurthernotedt hatnor ightofpassagei nfav ourofPor tugali
nvolvi
ngacorrel
at i
ve
obli
gationofI ndiahasbeenest abli
shedinr espectofar medf or
ces,armedpoli
ceandar msand
ammuni t
ion..Havingfoundt hatPor t
ugalhadi n1954ar ightofpassageov eri
nterv
eningI ndi
an
ter
ri
toryinr espectofpr i
vateper sons,ci
viloffi
cialsandgoodsi ngeneral
,theCourtnev ert
hel
ess
concludedt hatIndiahadl awf ul
ly.

Asy
lum Case(
Col
umbi
av.Per
u),
1950
FactandI
ssue-I
ssuei
nvol
vedi
nthi
scasewas-Whatar
etheessent
ial
element
sfort
he
exist
enceofint
ernat
ional
cust
om?Isitnecessar
ytopr
ovet
heconsentont
hepar
tofev
ery
Stateinor
derthatarul
eofcust
om besaidtoexi
st?
Deci
sion-Thecourtobserved:"Thepartywhi
chr
eli
esonusageoft
hiski
ndmustpr
ovet
hat
thi
scustom i
sest abli
shedinsuchamannert hatithasbecomebi ndingontheotherparty.The
Colombiangov er
nmentmustpr ovethattherul
einvokedbyitisinaccordancewithconstant
andunifor
m usagepr acti
cedbyt heStatesinquesti
on,andthatthisusageistheexpressi
onof
ari
ghtappertaini
ngtot heStategranti
ngasy l
um andadutyincumbentont het er
ri
tor
ialState.
Thisfol
l
owsf rom Art.
38oft heStatuteoftheCourt,whi
chreferstointer
nati
onalcust
om ‘as
evi
denceofgener alpract
iceacceptedasl aw.

Thecour trej
ectedCol ombi ancontenti
onast hefact sbroughtbef oreitdiscl
oseduncer t
aint
y,
contradictionandf luctuati
onswithregardtot heexer ci
seofdiplomat i
casy l
um.TheCol ombian
governmentf ai
ledt opr ov
et heexi
stenceoft heall
egedcust om.Accor dingtot hecourt
,evenif
i
tcoul dbesupposedt hatsuchacust om existedbet weencertainLat inAmer i
canSt at
esonly,it
couldnotbei nvokedagai nstPeruwhi chhadr epudiateditbyrefrainingfrom rati
fyi
ngthe
Mont evideoConv enti
onsof1933and1939, whichwer ethefi
rsttoi ncludearuleconcerningthe
quali
ficationoft heof f
encei nmattersofdipl
omat icasy l
um.

Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
I
slandofPal
masCase(
Net
her
landsv
.Uni
tedSt
ates)
(
1928)
FactandI
ssue-bothAmeri
caandNet
her
landscl
aimedsov
erei
gnt
yov
ert
heI
slandof
Pal
mas.Theclai
msoftheUnitedStat
eswer
ebasedonan1898t
reat
ywi
thSpai
n,whi
ch
i
nvol
vedthecessi
onofthei
sland.

Deci
sion-MaxHuber,i
naj
udgmentwhi
chdi
scussedt
hewhol
enat
ureoft
err
it
ori
al
soverei
gnty,dismissedt heAmer icanclaimsderivedfrom theSpanishdiscover
yasnoteffecti
ve
tofoundtit
le.134Huberdecl aredt hattheNetherlandspossessedsov erei
gntyonthebasi
sof
‘
theactualcont i
nuousandpeacef uldi
splayofstatefunct
ions’evi
dencedbyv ari
ous
administ
rati
veact sper formedov erthecenturi
es.135Itwasal soemphasisedthat
manifest
ationsoft erri
torialsovereigntymayassumedi ff
erentfor
ms, accordi
ngtocondit
ionsof
ti
meandpl ace.I ndeed,‘theintermi t
tenceanddiscont i
nui
tycompat i
blewiththemaint
enanceof
theri
ghtnecessar il
ydifferaccor dingasinhabit
edoruni nhabit
edregionsareinvol
ved’
.
Addit
ionall
y,geogr aphi
cal f
actorswer erelev
ant.

Itwasemphasisedbyt hearbi
trat
orandaccept
edbyt heparti
esthatSpaincoul
dnott her
eby
conveytotheAmericansgreaterri
ghtst
haniti
tsel
fpossessed.“
Itappearsfurt
hertobeev i
dent
thatt
reat
iesconcl
udedbySpai nwi t
hthi
rdpowersrecogni
zinghersoverei
gntyoverthe
Phi
l
li
pinescoul
dnotbebi
ndi
ngupont
heNet
her
lands”
.

soverei
gnt
yinrel
ati
ontoaport
ionofthesurf
aceoftheglobeisthelegal
condi
ti
onnecessar
y
forthei
ncl
usionofsuchpor
ti
onintheter
ri
toryofanypar
ticul
arstat
e.

Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
TempleofPreahVi
hearCase(
Mer
it
s)(
Cambodi
av.
Thai
l
and),1962
FactandI
ssue-WhethertheParti
esdi
dadoptt
heAnnex1map,
andt
hel
i
nei
ndi
cat
edon
i
t,asr
epresenti
ngtheoutcomeoft
heworkofdeli
mit
ati
onoft
hef
ront
ieri
nther
egi
onofPr
eah
Vi
hear,
therebyconfer
ri
ngonitabi
ndi
ngchar
acter

i
n1904t heboundar ybetweenCambodi a(thenaprotector
ateofFrance)andThai l
and( t
hen
Siam)inthesparsel
ypopul atedar eaofthePr eahVihearwasdeter
mi nedbyat reatybetween
FranceandSiam.Thet reatyst at
edt hati
twast ofol
lowt hewater
shedl i
ne.Thear eawher ethe
templewassituatedwasawar dedt oThai l
andunderthe1904boundar ytreat
y.Later,survey
s
wereconductedbyt echnicalexpertsont hebasisofwhichamapwaspr epar
edbyt heFrench
author
it
iesin1908whi chpl acedthet empleinCambodi a.

Deci
sion-TheCourtawardedtheterri
tor
ytoCambodi
abyappl
yi
ngt
her
uleofest
oppel
,
becausebyherconductThai landhadacqui escedtothefr
ontierli
necontendedbyCambodi a,
as
showni nthemap.Thai l
andwast husprecludedtocontestthesov erei
gnt
yofCambodi aover
theTempl earea.TheCour tr
ejectedThailand’spleaoferr
orinthemapandobser v
edt hat“
the
pleaoferrorcannotbeallowedasanel ementv it
iati
ngconsentifthepart
yadvancingit
contr
ibutedbyi t
sownconductt otheerror,orcouldhaveavoidedit,ori
ftheci
rcumstances
weresuchast oputthatpart
yonnot iceofapossi bl
eerr
or.”

Advi
sor
yOpini
onofICJontheLegali
tyoft
heThr
eat
orUseofNucl
earWeapons,
(1996)
Adv
isor
yOpi
niononTheLegal
i
tyoft
heThr
eatorUseofNucl
earWeapons,
ICJRepor
ts,
NotethatPhi
li
pBobbitthasdescri
bedfiv
edev el
opmentschal
lengi
ngthenat
ion-
stat
esy
stem,
andthusinessencecharact
eri
singtheglobal
i
sati
onchall
enge,asfol
l
ows:
t
herecogni
ti
onofhumanr
ight
sasnor
msr
equi
ri
ngadher
encewi
thi
nal
lst
atesr
egar
dlessof
i
nter
nall
aws;

thewidespr
eaddepl
oymentofweaponsofmassdest
ructi
onr
ender
ingt
hedef
enceofst
ate
border
sineff
ect
ualf
orthepr
otect
ionoft
hesoci
etywi
thin;

theproli
fer
ati
onofgl obal
andtransnat
ionalt
hreat
stranscendi
ngst
ateboundar
iessuchas
thosethatdamaget heenvir
onmentorthreat
enstatesthroughmi
grat
ion,
popul
ationexpansi
on,
diseaseorfamine;

thegrowthofaworl
deconomicregi
methati
gnoresbor
der
sinthemovementofcapit
al
i
nv estmentt
oadegr
eethatef
fecti
vel
ycur
tai
l
sstatesi
nthemanagementoft
heireconomi
c
aff
airs;

andthecr eat
ionofaglobal communi cati
onsnetworkt hatpenetr
atesbordersel
ectr
oni
call
yand
thr
eatensnat i
onall
anguages, cust
omsandcul tures,turnstimul
atesdisput
esofanalmost
i
deologicalnatur
econcer ning,forexample,t
herelationshipbetweenfreetr
adeand
envi
ronment alpr
otect
ion.17Tot hismaybeaddedt hepr essur
esofdemocr acyandhuman
ri
ghts,bothoperati
ngtosomeext entascounterv
aili
ngi nfl
uencestotheclassi
calemphasi
s
uponthet err
it
ori
alsovereigntyandj uri
sdi
cti
onofst ates.

Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
Advi
sor
yOpi
nionofI
CJi
nWest
ernSahar
aCase,
1975
FactandI
ssue-Thi
scasear
oseoutoft
hedecol
oni
sat
ionoft
hatt
err
it
ory
,cont
rol
l
edby
Spainasthecol
oni
alpowerbutsubjecttoir
redent
istcl
aimsbyMoroccoandMaur
it
ania.
The
questi
onwasaskedastowhetherthet er
ri
toryi
nquestionhadbeent
err
anull
i
usattheti
meof
col
onisat
ion.

TheCour
twasaskedforanopi
nionwit
hregardt
othel
egal
tiesbet
weent
het
err
it
oryatt
hat
ti
meandMoroccoandtheMauri
tani
anenti
ty.

Adv
isor
yOpi
nion-
Itwasemphasi
sedbyt
heCour
tthatt
heconceptoft
err
anul
l
iuswasa
l
egalterm ofart
usedinconnectionwi t
ht hemodeofacquisi
tionofterri
tor
yknownas
‘
occupati
on’.82Thelatt
ermodewasdef i
nedlegal
lyasanoriginalmeansofpeaceablyacquir
ing
sover
eigntyoverter
ri
toryother
wi sethanbycessionorsuccession.I
nani mport
antstat
ement ,
theCourtunambiguouslyassertedthatthestat
epracti
ceofther el
evantperi
od(i
.e.t
heperiod
ofcol
onisati
on)indi
catedthatterri
tori
esinhabi
tedbytr
ibesorpeopleshav i
ngasocialand
pol
i
tical
organi
sat
ionwer
enotr
egar
dedast
err
aenul
l
ius.

theCour tconcl
udedthatthetieswhichhadexistedbet weent heclaimantsandt heterrit
ory
duringtherelev
antperiodofthe1880swer enotsuchast oaf f
ecttheappl i
cati
onofr esoluti
on
1514( XV),theCol
onialDecl
aration,
inthedecolonisati
onoft heterri
toryandinparticularthe
ri
ghttosel f
-det
ermi
nat i
on.I
not herwords,i
tisclearthattheCour tregardedtheprincipleofsel
f-
determinati
onasal egaloneinthecontextofsucht err
itor
ies.

Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
Advi
soryOpini
onofICJinAccordancewith
I
nter
nati
onalLawoftheUnilat
eralDecl
arat
ionof
I
ndependenceinRespectofKosovoCase,2010
FactandI
ssue-The2008Kosovodecl
arat
ionofi
ndependencewasadopt
edon17
Februar
y2008inameetingoftheAssemblyofKosovo.
[5]I
twastheseconddecl
arat
ionof
i
ndependencebyKosovo'set
hnic-
Albani
anpol
it
ical
inst
it
uti
ons,
thefi
rsthav
ingbeen
procl
aimedon7September1990.[6]

Ser
biadecidedt
oseeki
nternat
ionalval
i
dationandsuppor
tfori
tsst
ancet
hatt
hedecl
arat
ionof
i
ndependencewasil
l
egalattheInt
ernat
ionalCour
tofJust
ice.

Whetherthedecl
arat
ionwasi
nfactanof
fi
cial
actoft
hePr
ovi
sional
Inst
it
uti
onsofSel
f-
Governmentwasunclear
.

Adv
isor
yOpi
nion-I
tdecl
aredt
hat"
theadopt
ionoft
hedecl
arat
ionofi
ndependenceof
17Febr uary2008di dnotv i
olategenerali
nt ernati
onallawbecausei nt er
national lawcontai
nsno
'
prohibit
ionondecl arat
ionsofi ndependence' ,
nordidt headopt i
onoft hedecl arationof
i
ndependencev i
olateUNSecur it
yCouncilResol uti
on1244, si
ncethisdidnotdescr i
beKosovo's
fi
nalstatus,norhadt heSecur i
tyCouncilreser v
edf ori
t sel
fthedecisiononf inal stat
us.[
2][
3][
4]
Therewer emanyr eactionst othedecisi
on, withmostcount ri
eswhichal readyr ecognised
Kosov ohaili
ngthedecisionandsay i
ngitwas" unique"anddoesnotsetapr ecedent ;
whil
e
manycount r
ieswhichdonotr ecogniseKosov osaidtheywoul dnotbedoi ngsoassuch
recogniti
oncouldsetapr ecedentofendor singsecessi oninotherplaces.
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
I
nReBer
ubar
iUni
on(
I)
,(
1960)
FactandI
ssue-Anagreementwassi
gnedbet
weenI
ndi
aandPaki
stanwhi
chl
eadt
othe
equal
divi
sionoft
heterr
it
oryofBerubar
iUnionequal
l
ybetweenI
ndiaandPaki
stan.Af
tersome
di
sputesandcont
inuouscri
ti
cism,
thematterwasrefer
redt
otheSupremecour
t.

Whet hertheenforcementoftheAgr
eementr el
ati
ngt otheBerubar
iUni
onandtheexchangeof
enclavesinvol
vessomel egisl
ati
vei
ntervent
ioneitherthroughthel
awofthePar
li
amentr ef
err
ed
toinAr t
icle3oftheConstit
uti
onorthroughthenecessar yamendmentoftheConst
it
ution
ref
erredt oinAr
ticle368,
orboth?

Deci
sion-SupremeCourti
nit
sdeci
sionhel
dthatt
hePar
li
amenti
snotcompet
entt
omake
alawrelat
abletoArti
cle3oftheConsti
tuti
ontoimplementt
hepurposeoftheagreementas
Arti
cl
e3doesnotr efertotheUni
onterr
itori
esandther
eisnodoubtthatArt
icl
e3coversUnion
ter
ri
tor
ies.HenceifanypartofUni
onterri
toryi
stobehandedoverl
awr el
atabl
etoArti
cle3
wouldnotbecompet enttomakesuchdeci si
on.

Supremecour tal
sostatedthatArt
icle3(c)oftheConst it
uti
onconfert
hepoweronpar li
ament
todiminishthest
ateterr
it
orybutnott ocede.Consideringthi
sitwasheldthattoi
mplementthe
agreementlawsrelat
abletoArti
cle368ist obemadewhi chsayst
hatanamendmentcanbe
i
niti
atedonlybytheintr
oducti
onoft heBilli
neitherofthehousesandiftheBill
ispassedbythe
specialmajori
tyi
tistobepassedt othePr esi
dentforhisassent.

Ram Ki
shor
eSenv
.Uni
onofI
ndi
a(1966)
FactandI
ssue-Thecasepertai
nst
othedi
sput
ebet
weensomer
esi
dent
s(Ram Ki
shor
e
Sen&Ot her
s)ofpartofBarubari
UnionNo.12, aboutoftr
ansferofhalfoftheareaofBarubari
UnionNo.12tothethenPakistan(nowBangladesh),asofRedcli
ffeAward, i
nv i
ewofthe'I
ndo-
Pakist
anAgreements'ent
eredint
oi n1956betweent hePri
meMi nist
ersofIndiaandPakistan
hal
foftheareaknownasBar ubariUnionNo.12,andapor t
ionofChilahat
iv i
l
lageadmeasur i
ng
512acreswereagreedtobet r
ansferr
edbyIndiatoPakist
an.

Deci
sion-Thi
scasehascl
ari
fi
edt
het
erm‘
Stat
e’.Thewor
dSt
atei
sincl
usi
veofUni
on
t
err
it
ori
est
hiscanbeder
ivedf
rom t
heExpl
anat
ion1ofAr
ti
cle3.Howev
er,
sincet
her
eisno
suchnecessi
tywi
thregar
dstotheprovi
sot
oAr
ti
cle3,
iti
sal
sopr
ovi
dedt
hatt
het
erm‘
stat
e’
shal
lnotincl
udeawordUnionTer
ri
tory
.

Rati
onale:Ther easoni sthati
nthecaseofal t
erati
onofboundar i
esoft hest at
e, i
tisv er
y
i
mpor tantt
ot aket heopinionoftheaffectedstate.Howev er,t
heuni ont err
itor
iesaregov erned
bythePar l
i
amenti tsel
f.Furt
her,t
heinclusionofthewor d“ Uni
onTer rit
or i
es”inthet erm“ st
ate”
occurr
ingint heprov i
sowoul dhavebeenr edundant .Explanati
on2f ur t
hercl ar
ifi
est hatthe
parl
iamenthast hepowerundercl ause(a)ofAr ti
cle3t ofor m newst atesoruni onterrit
oryby
uni
tingapar tofanyst ateorunionterr
itorytoanyot herst ateoruniont erri
tory.

Ther
efore,t
hesetwoexpl
anat
ionsareaddedt
oAr
ti
cle3wi
tht
hehel
poft
he
Const
itut
ion(18t
hAmendment )Act
,1966.

Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
Jol
l
yGeor
geVar
ghesev
.BankofCochi
n,1980
FactandI
ssue-thei
ssuewaswhet
heraj
udgment
-debt
orcoul
dbear
rest
edanddet
ained
i
npr i
soninexecuti
onofamoneydecr ee,orforf
ail
i
ngt oful
fi
llcont
ract
ualobli
gat
ions.Whi
l
eAr
t.
11oftheCov enantonCi
v i
landPol
i
ticalRight
sprohibi
tsso,Sec.51oftheIndi
anCivi
l
Procedur
eCodeaut hor
izesso.

Deci
sion-
TheSupr
emeCour
tobser
ved:
“I
ndi
aisasi
gnat
oryt
othi
sCov
enantandAr
t.51(
c)
oft
heConsti
tuti
onobli
gatest
heSt atetofosterr
espectfori
nter
nationall
awandt reaty
obl
i
gat
ionsinthedeal
ingsoforganizedpeopleswit
honeanot her.Evenso,unti
lthemuni ci
pal
l
awischangedtoaccommodat etheCov enantwhatbindsthecourtisthefor
mer ,notthelat
ter
”.

ThejudgeconstruedSec.51oft heCi vi
lProcedur eCodeofI ndi
ainsuchawayast oavoid
confl
ictwit
hAr t
.11oft heInternat i
onalCovenantonCi vi
landPoli
ti
calRi
ghts,1966jI
twasheld
thatSec.51oftheC. P.C.shal lprevaili
fthetreatyinquest i
onhasneit
herbeenspecif
ical
ly
adoptedinthemuni cipalfi
eldnorhasgoneundert ransformat
ioi
n.‘
Thepositi
vecommi tmentof
theStatepart
iesigniteslegislati
veact i
onathomebutdoesnotaut omatical
l
ymaket he
Covenantanenf orceablepar toft hecorpusjurisofIndia’.
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
GramophoneCompanyofI
ndi
aLt
d.v
.Bi
rendr
a
BahadurPandey
,1984
FactandI
ssue-Whetherthemerepresenceofgoodsi
ntr
ansi
tonI
ndi
anTer
ri
tor
y
amountstot
heiri
mportat
ion?Whet
hersuchgoodsi
ntr
ansi
t,whi
chi
fmadei
nIndi
awoul
d
i
nfr
ingecopy
right
,canbeall
owedonIndi
anTerr
it
ory
?

Deci
sion-Therecanbenoquesti
ont
hatnat
ionsmustmar
chwi
tht
hei
nter
nat
ional
communi tyandmuni cipal lawmustr espectrulesofint
ernati
onal l
aw.Thecomi tyofnat i
ons
requir
est hatr ulesofinter nati
onal l
awmaybeaccomodat edinthemuni cipallawev enwi t
hout
expresslegi slati
vesanct ioinButwhent heydor unintosuchconf li
ct,t
hesov ereigntyand
i
ntegrityoft heRepubl i
candsupr emacyoft heconstit
utedlegisl
aturesinmaki ngt helawsmay
notbesubj ectedt oexternal rul
es( excepttotheextentlegit
imatelyacceptedbyt heconstit
uted
l
egislatur
est hemselves) .Ifinrespectofanypr i
nci
pleofinternati
onallaw,thePar li
amentsay s
“no”,thenat ionalcourtcannotsay“ yes”.Nati
onalcourtshallapproveinter
nat i
onal l
awonly
wheni tdoesnotconf l
ictwi thnational l
aw.Nationalcourt
sbei ngorgansoft heSt ateandnot
organsofi nt ernat
ionallawmustperf or
ceappl ynati
onallawi fi
nter
nationallawconf li
ctswithi
t.

UnionofI
ndi
av.SukumarSengupt
a,(
TeenBi
gha
case)
Deci
sion-I
twashel
dthatl
easei
nper
pet
uit
yofTeenBi
ghai
nfav
ourofBangl
adeshdi
dnot
amountt
ocessat
ionoft
err
it
oryandhencel
egi
slat
ionwasnotr
equi
red^
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
Vell
oreCi
ti
zens’
Wel
far
eFor
um v
.Uni
onofI
ndi
a
(1996)
FactandI
ssue-I
nthi
scase,
cer
tai
ntanner
iesi
ntheSt
ateofTami
lNaduwer
e
discharginguntr
eatedeffl
uentintoagri
cult
uralfi
elds,
roadsides,water
waysandopenlands.The
untreatedeffl
uentfi
nall
ydischargedinariverwhichwast hemai nsourceofwat
ersupplyt
othe
residentsofVell
ore.TheSupremeCour tissuedcompr ehensivedir
ecti
onsformai
ntai
ningthe
standardsstipul
atedbythePol l
uti
onCont r
ol Boar
d.

Deci
sion-TheSupremeCourtobservedthatthe“Precauti
onar
ypr
inci
ple”andt
he“
Pol
l
uter
Payspri
nci
ple”arepar
toftheenvir
onment al
lawoft
hecount r
yinvi
ewoft hevar
ious
const
it
uti
onalandstat
utor
ypr ov
isi
ons.Thesepri
nci
plesareessent
ial
f eatur
esof“Sust
ainabl
e
devel
opment”.The“Pr
ecauti
onarypri
nci
ple”int
hecontextoft
hemuni cipall
awmeans:

(i
)Envi
ronmental
measur
esbytheStat
eGovernmentandthest
atut
oryaut
hor
it
ies-must
anti
ci
pate,
prev
entandat
tackt
hecausesofenvi
ronment
aldegr
adati
on

(i
i)wher
ether
ear
ethreat
sofseri
ous/i
rr
ever
sibledamage,l
ackofscient
if
iccert
aint
yshoul
d
notbeusedasar
easonforpost
poni
ngmeasur estopr
eventenv
ironmentaldegr
adati
on

(ii
i)The“onusofpr oof'
isontheactororthedevel
oper/
indust
ri
ali
sttoshowt hathi
sact i
onis
environmental
lybenign.
The“Poll
uterPays”pr
inci
plemeansthattheabsolut
eliabi
li
tyforhar
m
totheenvironmentextendsnotonlytocompensatethevict
imsofpollut
ionbutalsothecostof
restori
ngtheenvir
onment al
degradati
on.

Remediat
ionoft
hedamagedenvir
onmentispar
toft
heprocessof“Sust
ainabl
edevel
opment”
andassuchpoll
uteri
sli
abl
etopaythecostt
othei
ndi
vi
dualsuff
erersaswellast
hecostof
rev
ersi
ngthedamagedecol
ogy.

TheSupremeCour tfurt
herobser
ved:Sust
ainabledev
elopmentasabal ancingconceptbet
ween
ecologyanddevel
opmenthasbeenaccept edasapar tofthecustomar
yi nt
ernati
onall
aw
thoughit
ssali
entfeatur
eshaveyettobefinal
izedbytheinter
nati
onall
awj uri
sts.
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
Vi
shakav
.St
ateofRaj
ast
han,
1997
FactandI
ssue-theattenti
onoft
heSupr
emeCour
twasf
ocusedt
owar
dspr
event
ionof
sexual
har
assmentofwor
kingwomeni
nal
lwor
k-pl
aces.

Deci
sion-TheCourttookaseri
ousnot
eoft
hemat
terandhel
dthateachsuchi
nci
dent
result
edi
nv i
olat
ionofthef undament
alri
ghtsof“GenderEqual
i
ty”andt he“
Rightt
oLif
eand
Libert
y”enshr
inedinArts.14,15and21oft heConsti
tut
ionofI
ndia.Itwasalsohel
dtobe
viol
ati
onofthevict
im’
sf undamentalr
ightunderArt
.19(1) (
g)t
opr acti
seanyprof
essi
onorto
carryonanyoccupati
on,tradeorbusi
ness,asa“safe”worki
ngenvironmenti
sneededfort
hat.

TheApexCour tobser ved:Genderequal i

tyincludesprotecti
onf rom sexualharassmentand
ri
ghttowor kwi t
hdi gnity
,whi chisauniversall
yacceptedbasi chumanr ight[
Sec.2(d)oft he
ProtectionofHumanRi ghtsAct ,1993],
Intheabsenceofsui tabledomest icl
egislat
ioninthis
sphere, i
nternati
onal conventions/norms,sof arastheyar econsi st
entwi t
htheconst it
uti
onal
spir
it,canber eli
edon, vi
z.Conv enti
onont heEl imi
nationofAl lFormsofDi scri
minationagainst
Women( CEDAW, Arts.11,22-24).Theycanber eadint
ot hoserightsforinter
preti
ngt hem int
he
l
argercont exttopr omot et heobjectsoftheConst it
uti
on.Theycanber eli
edonbyt heSupr eme
Courtt oformulategui deli
nesf ortheenforcementoff undament alr
ights.

Justi
ceKSPut
taswamy(
Ret
d.)v
.Uni
onofI
ndi
a
(2017)
FactandI
ssue-Whethertheri
ghtt
opr
ivacyi
sani
ntr
insi
cpar
toft
her
ightt
oli
feand
per
sonall
iber
tyunderAr
ti
cle21andapar
toft
hef
reedomsguar
ant
eedbyPar
tII
Ioft
he
Const
it
uti
on.

Deci
sion-l
andmar
kjudgmentoft
heSupr
emeCour
tofI
ndi
a,whi
chhol
dst
hatt
her
ightt
o
pr
ivacyi
spr
otect
edasaf
undament
alr
ightunderAr
ti
cles14,
19and21oft
heConst
it
uti
onof
I
ndia.

Anine-j
udgebenchunanimouslyheldthat“t
her i
ghttoprivacyispr ot
ectedasani ntr
insicpar
tof
theri
ghttolif
eandpersonall
ibert
yunderArticl
e21andasapar tofthef r
eedomsguar ant
eed
byPartII
IoftheConsti
tuti
on”.I
texpli
cit
lyoverr
ulesprevi
ousj udgement softheSupr emeCourt
i
nKhar akSinghvsStat
eofUPandM. PShar mav sUnionofI ndia,whichheldthatthereisno
fundamentalri
ghtt
oprivacyundertheIndi
anConst i
tuti
on.
Ther i
ghttopri
vacywasr einf
orcedbytheconcurri
ngopi
nionsofthejudgesi nthiscasewhich
recognizedt
hatthisrightincl
udesautonomyov erper
sonaldeci
sions(e.g.consumpt i
onofbeef),
bodilyi
ntegr
it
y(e.g.reproductiv
eright
s)aswellastheprot
ecti
onofper sonalinformati
on(e.g.
priv
acyofhealthrecords).

J.Chelameswar:
inhi
sopini
on,theJudgesaidthatther i
ghttopr
ivacyi
mpl
i
edari
ghtt
orefuse
medicaltr
eat
ment,ari
ghtagai
nstfor
cedf eedi
ng,therightt
oconsumebeefandt
heri
ghtt
o
di
splaysymbolsofr
eli
gioni
none’spersonalappearanceetc.

J.Bobde:t
heJudgeobservedt
hatconsentwasessent
ial
fordi
str
ibut
ionofi
nher
ent
lyper
sonal
datasuchasheal
thr
ecords.

J.Nar i
man: int
hisconcur
ri
ngopini
on,t
heJudgeclassif
iedthefacet
sofpri
vacyint
onon-
i
nterferencewiththei
ndiv
idual
body,pr
otect
ionofpersonal
informati
onandautonomyover
personal choi
ces.

TheCourtalsorecogni
zedthatther
ightwasnotabsol
utebutal
lowedforr
est
ri
cti
onwheret
his
wasprovi
dedbyl aw,corr
espondedtoalegi
ti
mateaim oft
heStateandwaspropor
ti
onat
etothe
obj
ect
iveitsoughttoachiev
e.

Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360