Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel Vs. Union of India & ANR [1969] INSC 4 (9 January 1969)
09/01/1969 HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHAH, J.C.
RAMASWAMI, V.
MITTER, G.K.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION: 1969 AIR 783 1969 SCR (3) 254 1970 SCC (3) 400
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1990 SC1692 (13)
ACT:
Constitution of India, Arts. 1, 3, 73, 254, Entries 14, 15 List 1, Schedule VII-Award settling disputed boundary-If constitutional amendment necessary for implementation of award-Implementation of treaties, and arbitral awardsBoundary dispute, settlement of and cession of territory difference between.
HEADNOTE:
The Constitution of India, Art. 1 defines the "territory of India" as including the territories of the States; and the States and 'the territories thereof are as specified in the First Schedule. Article 3 enables Parliament by law to alter the boundaries of the existing States and it includes the power to increase the area of any State or diminish the area of any State. The power to legislate in respect of treaties lies with the Parliament by virtue of entries 10 and 14 of List I of Seventh Schedule, namely, "Foreign affairs; all matters which bring the Union into relation with any foreign country" and "entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties, agreements and conventions with foreign countries". Article 253 provides that Parliament has power to make any law 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. Article 73 lays down that the executive power of the Union 'shall extend to "the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws' and to "the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue 'of any treaty or agreement".
With the enactment of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and the lapse of Paramountcy of the Crown the State of Kutch merged with the Dominion of India. The territory was constituted into a Chief Commissioner's Province and under the Constitution the territory became a Part C State. Its extent was determined by Part C to Sch. 1 of the Constitution as "territories which by virtue of an order made under s. 290A of the Government of India Act, 1935, were immediately before the commencement of the Constitution being administered as if they were a Chief Commissioner Province, of the same name". Kutch was incorporated in the State of Bombay by the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and was included in the new 'State of Gujarat by the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960.
The Great Rann of Kutch lies between the mainland of Sind (now part of Pakistan) and the mainland of Kutch, For four months in the year it is mostly under water, for the rest of the year it is marshy land. From the very nature of the terrain the boundaries of the Rann are shifting, its extent depending on the violence of natural elements in different years. The northern boundary of the Rann, therefore, always remained ill defined.. From 1948 onwards diplomatic notes were exchanged between the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the boundary between the two countries in the Gujrat-West Pakistan Sector. The dispute led 'to great tension between the two countries resulting in armed conflict in 255 1965. In June 1965 the Governments of India and Pakistan concluded ,an agreement for setting up a Tribunal "for determination and demarcation of the border" in the area of Gujarat-West Pakistan. 'Both Governments undertook to implement the findings of the Tribunal. The award to be made by the Tribunal was, it was agreed, to operate as a self executing arrangement; it, was not only to declare the boundary but also to provide for fixing its location on site. By award dated February 19, 1968, the Tribunal accepted the claim of Pakistan to three sectors and two inlets in the Rann of Kutch.
The petitioners, who claimed infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(d)(e) and (f) of the Constitution, moved this Court under Art. 32 to restrain the Government of India from ceding to Pakistan the territories in the Rann of Kutch awarded by the Tribunal. None of the petitioners claimed that the award bad to be rejected. They contended that the territories were part of India and had always been so from the establishment of the two Dominions, that India had exercised effective administrative control over them and-that giving up a claim :to those territories involved cession of Indian territory which could only be affected by an amendment of the First Schedule to the Constitution. The Union of India, on the other hand, contended that no cession of territory was involved since the dispute concerned the settlement of boundary which was uncertain, that the award itself was the operative treaty and after demarcation of boundary it was only necessary to exchange letters recognising the established border.
HELD : The Award does not purport to nor does it operate as giving rise to an obligation to cede Indian territory and therefore no constitutional amendment is necessary. The decision to implement the Award by exchange of letters, treating the award as an operative treaty after the boundary has been marked, is within the competence of the executive wing of the Government. [288 H-289 B] (Per Hidayatullah, C.J., Hamaswami, Mitter and Grover, JJ.) The Award has been accepted by the Government of India and therefore it is binding. An examination of International Arbitration Awards only reveals that generally an Award is not accepted when the terms of submission are departed from or there are fatal missions,contradictions obscurities or the arbitrators substantially exceeded their jurisdiction.
None of these factors obtains here and the petitioners have rightly refrained from challenging the binding nature of the Award. [269 F] (ii) When a treaty or an Award after arbitration comes into existence it has to be implemented and this can only be if all the three branches of Government, to wit, the legislature the executive and the judiciary, or any of them, possesses the power to implement it. The practice of nations is different in the matter of': implementation of treaties and arbitration awards in boundary disputes in particular. The question is one of domestic as well as International Law. In the United States of America a treaty is the Supreme Law and it is only when the terms of a treaty require that a law must be passed that it has to be so passed. Under the French Constitution treaties that require ratification by law include treaties of cession, exchange or addition of territory. In England, as no written constitution exists, difference is made between treaties of peace when the Crown acts without obtaining the approval of Parliament and session in peace time when such approval must be had. But even so a distinction is made in the case of British possessions abroad and the United Kingdom. Again a difference is made in cases involving minor changes where boundaries have to be ascertained and adjusted. [275 G] 256 Foster v. Neilson 2 Peters 253; Dickinson Law of Nations, Blackstone's Commentaries, Forsyth Hansard vol. CLXIX p: 230, 231; The Parlement Belge, [1879] 4 P.D. 129; Walker v. Baird [1892] A.C. 491 and Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario, [1937] A.C. 326 it 347, referred to.
In British India Parliamentary sanction was not necessary for cession of territory. The Constitution of India does not contain any clear direction about treaties such as is to be found in the United States and French Constitutions.
Therefore in our country we can only go by inferences from our Constitution, the circumstances and precedents. The legislative entries which enable Parliament to enact laws in respect of treaties are to be read with Art. 253. The Article adds nothing to the legislative entries but confers exclusive power of law making upon Parliament. [276 B, C; 277 A-B] The precedents of this Court are clear only on one point, namely, that no cession of Indian territory can take place without a constitutional amendment. The first Berubari case dealt with transfer of territory which was de facto and de jure Indian territory and therefore as the extent Indian territories as defined in Art. 1 read with the 1st Schedule was reduced a constitutional amendment was held necessary.
The second Berubari case concerned territory which was de facto under administration by India but being de jure that of Pakistan, transfer of that territory which was not a part of Indian territory was held not to require a constitutional amendment. Neither case dealt with a boundary dispute. [282 G283 C] In re : The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves (The First Berubari case), [1960] 3 S.C.R. 250 and Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India (The second Berubari 'case), [1966] 1 S.C.R. 430, explained.
The question on which side a disputed border falls is one of authority. Who in the State can be said to possess Plenum dominium depends upon the Constitution and the nature of adjustment. As to the necessity of it courts must assume it as a matter of law. It is scarcely to be thought that the validity of the action can ever depend upon the judgment of a court. A boundary dispute and its settlement by an arbitral. tribunal cannot be put on the same footing as cession of territory. An agreement to refer the dispute regarding boundary involves the ascertainment and representation on the surface of the earth a boundary line dividing the neighbouring countries and the very fact of referring such a dispute implies that the executive may do such acts as are necessary, for permanently fixing the boundary. Ordinarily, an adjustment of a boundary, which International Law regards as valid between two nations, should be recognised by the courts and the implementation thereof can always be with the executive unless a clear case of cession is involved when parliamentary intercession can be expected and should be had. This has been the custom of nations whose constitutions are not sufficiently elaborate on this subject. [283 D284 B] (iii)The petitioners have not established that the territories ceded to Pakistan was a part of Kutch. The phrase "as if they were a Chief Commissioner's Province of the same name" in Part C, to first Schedule of the Constitution must be understood as was laid down by this Court in the second Berubari case where the word "as if" was held to refer to "territories which originally did not belong to West Bengal but which became a part of West Bengal by reason of merger agreements." The history of Kutch does not establish that the territories were part of Kutch. The White Paper on Indian States only gives the area of Kutch not the boundaries. The Kutch merger agreement gives no clue to the boundaries 257 and also leaves the matter at large. Also, in the States Merger (Chief Commissioner's) Province Order, 1949, in the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and in the Bombay Re organisation Act, 1960 the boundaries of Kutch are not mentioned. Therefore, none of these documents is of any help in determining boundaries or that the disputed area was definitely a part of India. The assertion of the Prime Minister of India in 1956 and later in 1965 that the area belonged to India was only a statement and cannot be held to he of an evidentiary character. The claim map and other evidence produced by India before the Tribunal show that there has never been clear demarcation of boundary in this area. [281 H, 286 AB] (iv) There is no evidence of administration 'of the disputed area by India. The existence of Watch and Ward Officers or the establishment of a polling booth for them at election time cannot connote administration such as would make them territory of India. The diplomatic notes began soon after the establishment of the two dominions and the occupation may have meant de facto control but there was no proof of de jure occupation or any other administration. Sovereignty over an area is a matter of inference and unless real existence of sovereignty over this area is proved India cannot be in de jure occupation.
(Per Shah J.) : (i) The Constitution of India makes no provision making legislation a condition of the entry into an international treaty in times of war or peace. The executive is qua the State competent to represent the State in all matters international and may incur obligations which in International Law are binding upon the State. There is a distinction between the formation and the performance of the obligations constituted by a treaty. Under the Constitution the obligations arising under the agreement or treaties are not by their own force binding upon Indian nationals or others. The power to legislate in respect of treaties lies with the Parliament and making of law under that authority is necessary when the treaty or agreement operates to restrict the rights of citizens or others or modifies the laws of the State. If the rights of the citizens and others which are justiciable are not affected, no legislative measure is needed to, give effect to. the agreement or treaty. [299 D-F] The Parlement Belge, [1879] 4 P.D. 129, Walker v. Baird, [1892] A.C. 491 and Attorney-General for Canada v. AttorneyGeneral for Ontario, [1937] A.C. 326, referred to.
The argument that power to make or implement a treaty agreement or convention can only be exercised under authority of law proceeds upon a misreading of Art. 253.
The effect of Art. 253 is that if a treaty agreement or convention with a foreign State deals with a subject matter within the competence of the State Legislature, the Parliament alone has,. notwithstanding Art. 246(3) the power to make, laws to implement the treaty agreement or convention. In terms the Article deals with legislative power; thereby power is conferred upon the Parliament which it may not otherwise possess. But it does not seek to circumscribe the extent of the executive power conferred by Art., 73; the exercise of this power must be supported by legislation only if in consequence of the exercise of the power, rights of citizens or others are restricted or infringed or laws are modified. [299 G-300 C] (ii) In implementing the Award there is no cession of the territory of India to Pakistan. A review of the terms of the agreement, the unanimous introductory part of the Award and the terms of the agreement relating to the implementation of the Award and the final Award, make it abundantly clear that the dispute relates to the boundary between the two.
2 58 States, settlement of dispute which relates to the alignment of an undefined boundary between two States involves no cession of territory by either State. In the First Berubari case this Court advised that the Indo Pakistan agreement could be implemented under the authority of a constitutional amendment only, because, there was no question of demarcation of a disputed boundary; it was a case of pure cession of territory. Therefore the principle of the first Berubari case has no application to the facts of the present case.
The second Berubari case related to transfer of territory which though temporarily under Indian administration had never become Indian territory. The principle of this case is against the contention raised by the petitioners. [301 C302 F] In re : The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves (the first Berubari case),, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 250 and Ram Kishore Sen V. Union of India, (the second Berubari case),, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 430 explained.
There is no definite and reliable piece of evidence which establishes ;that the disputed seam were part of the State of Kutch and, therefore, part of the territory of India.
Conflicting claims were made from time to time by the British authorities and the Maharao of Kutch; and about the exercise of sovereign rights over the areas now in dispute the evidence in scrappy and discrepant. Different positions were adopted by the officers of the Government of India according as the exigencies of a particular situation demanded. These statements or assertions do not evidence an existing state of affairs; they were only made to support or resist claims then made, or to serve some immediate purpose.
[305 F-H] Regarding the two inlets the ultimate decision of the Tribunal is founded on considerations of expediency and not on strict determination of rights. But the ground on which the Award is made against the claim made by the Government of India, does not strengthen the rights of the claimants for relief. There being no evidence of exercise of sovereign authority over the inlets by the Maharao of Kutch this Court cannot treat them as part of Indian territory.
Exercise of de facto authority over the territory in the' sectors after the disputes took concrete form is evidence of an assertion merely and not evidence of pre-existing sovereign rights. ,The merger of the State of Kutch with the Dominion of India does not result in vesting of sovereign authority over the territory unless the suzerainty of the State of Kutch is established. The Award does no more than define on the surface of the earth a boundary which has at all material times remained indefinite because of the nature of the terrain, the shifting nature of the border of what was called Rann, the highly discrepant and 'conflicting claims made from time to time by the British authorities as well as the Kutch-State authorities before the State merged with the Dominion of India in 1948 and the persistent refusal of the British authorities, though there were several occasions, to demarcate the boundary between Sind and the Rann of Kutch. [307 G; 208 D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1528 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the order of March 18, 1968 of the Gujart High Court in Special Civil Application No. 365 of 1968 and Civil Appeals Nos. 1900 and 2118 of 1968.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated May 14, 1968 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 343 and 294 259 of 1968 and Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of the fundamental rights.
I. N. Shroff, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 1528 of 1968).
A. S. Bobde, G. L. Sanghi, V. K. Sanghi and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 1900 of 1968).
C. B. Agarwala, Virendra Kumar, S. S. Pareikh, Uma Mehta and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 211'8 of 1968).
The petitioner appeared in person (in W.P. No. 109 of 1968).
The petitioner appeared in person (in W.P. No. 234 of 1968).
The petitioner appeared in person (in W.P. No. 402 of 1968).
C. B. Agarwala, B. N. Antani and R. K. Bhatt, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 403 of 1968).
A. S. Bobde and S. S. Khanduja, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 409 of 1968).
C. K. Daphtary, B. Sen, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the Union of India (in C.A. Nos. 1528, 1900 and 2118 of 1968 and W.P. Nos. 234, 402 and 403 of 1968).
G. R. Rajagopal; R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the Union of India (in. W.P. No. 109 of 1968).
C. K. Daphtary, B. Sen, A. Sreedharan Nambiar, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the Union of India (in W.P. No. 409 of 1968).
R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the State of Gujarat.
The Judgment of HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., RAMASWAMI, MITTER and GROVER, JJ. was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. SHAH, J.
delivered a separate Opinion.
Hidayatallah, C.J. These are five writ petitions under Art.
32 of the Constitution and three appeals against the decisions of, the' High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi. The writ petitions have been filed by Mr. Manikant Tiwari (W.P. No. 109/68), Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma (W.P. No. 234/68), Mr. Madhu Limaye (W.P. No. 402/68), Mr. Gulabshankar Amritlal Dholakia (W.P. No. 403/68) and Mr. Node Sadi Rau (W.P. No. 409/68). The appeals from the Delhi High Court's common judgment, 14 May, 1968 on certificate are by Mr.Shiv Kumar Sharma (C.A. No. 2118/68) and Major Ranjit Singh (C.A.
1900/68) and the appeal from the decision of the Gujarat High Court is in a writ petition filed by Mt. Maganbhai lshwarbhai Patel (C.A. No. 1528/68). The Gujarat High Court, 18 March, 1968, dismissed 260 the petition summarily and the appeal is by special leave of this Court. This judgment will dispose of all of them.
The several petitioners seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution to restrain the Government of India from coding without the approval of Parliament the areas in the Rann of Kutch known as Kanjarkot, Chhadbet, Dharabanni, Priol Valo Kun and two inlets on either side of Tharparkar to Pakistan as awarded to' it in the award, 19 February, 1968, of the Indo-Pakistan Western Bombay case Tribunal.
Mr. 1. N. Shroff (C.A. No. 1528/68), Mr. A. S. Bobde (C.A.
No. 1900/68) and Mr. C. B. Agarwal (W.P. No. 403/68) represented three such petitioners. Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Mr. Madhu Limaye and Mr. Manikant Tiwari argued their own matters. The Union of India was represented by Mr. C. K. Daphtary, former Attorney General of India, who had also conducted the case for India before the Tribunal.
The Indian Independence Act of July 18, 1947, (an Act of the British Parliament) created from August 15, 1947 two dominions known as India and Pakistan. By the same statute the paramountcy of the British Crown over the States of Kutch Santalpur, Tharad, Suigam, Way and Jodhpur lapsed and they soon acceded to and merged with India. The former British Indian Province of Sind was included in Pakistan while the Presidency of Bombay was part of India. Between these two lies the Great Rann of Kutch, Sind shutting on the North and West and the Indian mainland on the South and East.
The Rann is a vast expanse of water and desert. For part of the year even the desert is covered by water. At other times it is either soft mud or land with grass. No one ordinarily lives in that area which the onagers roam at large.
It appears that from July 1948 Diplomatic Notes were exchanged between the two Governments with regard to the boundary 'between the areas known as Gujarat and West Pakistan. The difference led to open hostilities in April 1965. On June 30, 1965 the two Governments reached an agreement which read "Constitution of the Tribunal, Proceedings.
On 30 June, 1965, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan concluded an Agreement, reading as follows :
Whereas both, the Governments of India and Pakistan have agreed to a cease-fire and to restoration of the status quo as at 1 January, 1965, in the area of the Gujarat-West Pakistan border in the confidence that this will also contribute to a reduction of the present tension along the entire Indo-Pakistan border;
261 Whereas it is necessary that after the status quo has been established in the aforesaid Gujarat-West Pakistan border area, arrangements should be made for determination and demarcation of the border in that area;
NOW, THEREFORE, the two Governments agree that the following action shall be taken in regard to the said area Article 1:
There shall be an immediate cease-fire with effect from 0030 hours GMT on 1 July 1965.
Article 2 On the cease fire (i) All troops on both sides will immediately begin to withdraw;
(ii) This process will be completed within seven days;
(iii) Indian police may then, reoccupy the post at Chhad Bet in strength no greater than that employed at the post on 31 December 1964;
(iv) Indian and Pakistan police may patrol on the tracks on which they were patrolling prior to 1 January 1965, provided that their patrolling win not exceed in intensity that which they were doing prior to 1 January 1965 and during the monsoon period will not exceed in intensity that done during the monsoon period of 1964;
(v) If patrols of Indian and Pakistan police should come into contact they will not interfere with each other, and in particular will act in accordance with West PakistanIndia border ground-rules agreed to in January 1960;
(vi) Officials of the two Governments will meet immediately after the cease-fire and from time to time thereafter as may prove desirable in order to consider whether any problems arise in the implementation of the provisions of paragraphs (iii)to (v) above and to agree on the settlement of any such problems.
262 Article 3 (i) In view of the fact that (a) India claims that there is no territorial dispute as there is a well established boundary running roughly along the northern edge of the Rann of Kutch as shown in the pre-partition maps, which needs to be demarcated on the ground.
(b) Pakistan claims that the border between India and Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch runs roughly along the 24th parallel as is clear from several pre-partition and post-partition documents and therefore the dispute involves some 3,500. square miles of territory.
(c) At discussions in January 1960, it was agreed by Ministers of the two Governments that they would each collect further data regarding the Kutch-Sind boundary and that further discussions would be held later, with a view to arriving at a settlement of this dispute; as soon as officials have finished the task referred to in article 2 (vi), which in any case will not be later than one month after the cease-fire, Ministers of the two Governments will meet in order to agree on the determination of the border in the light of their respective claims, and the arrangements for its demarcation. At this meeting and at any proceedings before the Tribunal referred to in article 3(ii) and (iv) below, each Government will be free to present and develop their case in full.
(ii) In the event of no agreement between the Ministers of the two Governments on the determination of the border being reached within two months of the cease-fire, the. two Governments shall, as contemplated, in the Joint Communiqué of 24 October, 1959, have recourse to the Tribunal referred to in (iii) below for determination of the border, in the light of their respective claims and evidence produced before it and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding on both the parties.
(iii) For this purpose there shall be constituted, within four months of the ceasefire a Tribunal consisting-of three persons, none of whom would be a national of either India or Pakistan. One member shall be nominated by each Govern and the third member, who will be the Chairman, shall be jointly selected by the two Governments. In the event of the two Governments failing to agree on the selection of the Chairman within three months of the cease fire, they shall request the Secretary-General of the United Nations to nominate the Chairman.
(iv) The decision of the Tribunal referred to in (iii)above shall be binding on both Governments and shall not be questioned on any ground whatsoever. Both Governments undertake to implement the findings of the Tribunal in full as quickly as possible and shall refer to the Tribunal for decision any difficulties which may arise between them in the implementation of these findings. For that purpose the Tribunal shall remain in being until its findings have been implemented in full.
The cease-fire came into effect as provided in Article 1 of the Agreement.
As a result of this agreement the Government of India nominated Ambassador Ales Bebler, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia, the Government of Pakistan nominated' Ambassador Nasrollah Entezam of Iran and former President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The two Governments having failed to agree on the selection of the Chairman of the Tribunal, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, under the power reserved by sub-paragraph (iii) of Article 3 of the Agreement, nominated Judge Gunnar Lagergren, now President of the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden. In the course of the hearing a compromise on the procedure for the demarcations of the boundary was settled.
Memorials, Counter-Memorials and Final Memorials were submitted along with numerous Maps, and documents. The oral hearings began on September 15, 1966 and continued with some breaks till July 14, 1967. During the hearing about 10,000 pages of minutes and Verbatim Records were made and about 350 maps were exhibited.
At an early stage in the hearing Pakistan raised the question that the dispute be decided ex aequo et bono which request was opposed by India. The Tribunal did not find that the Agreement of June 30, 1965 authorised it 'clearly and beyond doubt to adjudicate ex aequo et bono'. The parties did not confer this power by a Special Compromis even thereafter.
The case on the part of India was pro pounded with the aid of map A which was a mosaic of Indian Maps B-44, B-37, B-19, 264 and B-20. Pakistan claimed the boundary as marked on Map B.
The award has delineated the boundary in Map C. Maps A and B and C form part of the Award. In describing the matter in dispute the Tribunal observed: India claimed that "the Tribunal determine the alignment of the entire boundary between West Pakistan and Gujarat from the point at which the blue dotted line meets the purple line in Indian Map B-44 in the west to the North-Eastern Tri junction in the east as it appears in the Indian Maps B-44, B-37, B-19 and B-20 where the correct alignment is shown by appropriate boundary symbols." The Government of Pakistan claimed that "The Tribunal determine that the border between India and Pakistan is that which is marked with green-yellow, thick broken line in the Pakistan Claim Map It is common ground that the Gujarat-West "Pakistan boundary stretches from the, mouth of the Sir Creek in the west to a point on the Jodhpur boundary in the east. The Parties agree that the Western Terminus of the boundary to be determined by the Tribunal is the point at which the blue dotted line meets the purple line as depicted in Indian Map B-44 and the Pakistan Resolution Map, and that the Eastern Terminus of the same boundary is a point situated 825.8 metres below pillar 920 on the Jodhpur boundary as depicted in Pakistan Map-137." "This agreement leaves out of the matters submitted to the Tribunal the portion of the boundary along the blue dotted line, as depicted in Indian Map B-44 and the Pakistan Resolution Map, as well as the boundary in the Sir Creek. The blue dotted line is agreed by both Parties to form the boundary between India and Pakistan. In view of the aforesaid agreement, the question concerning the Sir Creek part of the boundary is left out of consideration." The dispute thus remained with regard to the boundary outside these agreements. The Tribunal described this dispute in the following words "From the Western Terminus, the boundary claimed by India takes off to the north and that claimed by 265 Pakistan to the south; and from the Eastern Terminus, the boundary claimed by India takes off to the south-west while the boundry claimed by Pakistan turns south-east.
Both parties agree that before Independence the boundaries between the Province of Sind, on the one hand, and one or more of the Indian States on the other hand, were conterminous.
Therefore, in the disputed region, apart from India and Pakistan there is no other State that does or could have sovereignty. There is between India and Pakistan a conterminous boundary today, whether or not there was at all times a conterminous boundary between Sind and the Indian States.
Pakistan contends that, should the Tribunal find that the Province of Sind and the Indian States were not fully conterminous, then the area between Sind and these States would be an "undefined area", falling outside the scope of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. In such an event, the conterminous boundary between India and Pakistan would have to be determined by the Tribunal on the basis of rules and principles applicable in such circumstances.
Pakistan adds that the evidence produced by it in this case is in support of its principal submission, although some of it could also be used in support of its alternative submission.
Both parties agree that the Rann was not a "tribal area" as defined in Section 311 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
Each party states that the boundary claimed by it is the traditional, well-established and well-recognised boundary." Pakistan thus claimed in addition to the establishment of a median line roughly along the 24th parallel, what it called the upper lands in dispute and the northwestern part of it which it called 'the jutting triangle'. These included Dhara Banni, Chhadbet, Pirol Valo Kun, Kanjarkot, Vighokot and Sarifbela and these were said to be not part of the Rann. India on the other hand stated that the Rann means the Rann lying to the east of the vertical line and to the south of the horizontal line as depicted in Map A. Pakistan maintained that the Rann lay to the east of what was once known as the Khori river and that the lands were part of Sind and referred to the same as 'the delta lands'.
L7sup. CI/69-18 265 266 The above in brief is the, outline of the dispute as presented to the Tribunal. Although the AWard of the Tribunal it before us it was necessary to make this brief mention because we are required t"o reach a decision whether this was a clear case of cession of territory following the, award, which it is claimed makes it incumbent for the executive authority in India to obtain the approval of Parliament by suitable amendment of our Constitution, before effectuating the Award.
The Tribunal was not unanimous in its decision. Judge Ales Bebler accepted almost in its entirety the claim of India.
Ambassador Nosrollah Entezam upheld the Pakistani claim.
The Chairman then delivered his opinion. On the propounding of his opinion Ambassador Entezam gave his opinion as follows Opinion of Mr. Entezam "In an early stage I considered that Pakistani had made out a clear title to the northern half of the am shown in the survey maps as Rann. I have now had the advantage of reading the opinion of the learned Chairman, and in the light of it I concur in and endorse the judgment of the learned chairman.
The Tribunal thereupon ruled thus:
" The alignment of the boundry described in the opinion of the chairman and endorsed by Mr. Entezam has obtained the required majority. It is therefore the boundary determined by the Tribunal.
The Chairman prefaced his conclusions by observing "For the reasons now given, and with due regard to what is fair and reasonable as to details I conclude of the great issue before me that the boundary between India and Pakistan lies as follows. Reference is made here to the Award Map (Map C). Because of the imprecise topographical features in the region and the impossibility of exactly delimiting many acts of State authority,, the boundary must sometimes be represented by approximate straight lines." The Chairman then indicated the exact location of the boundary determined by him which was also delineated by him on the Map C. The new boundary begins at the northern tip of the Khori Creek and after going straight up north reaches the mainland of Sind and then follows roughly the configuration of the land till it comes south of Rahim ke bazar. It thus follows Erskines Survey. Thereafter instead of following the mainland it dips to the South East just South of Sadariajagot and then 267 goes up North West to join the maintained and to follow the boundary symbols. In the triangle, so formed is situated the Kanjarkot area which is the first limb of the disputed territory brought to the fore before us. After following the line of the mainland and the existing boundary symbols the new boundary again dips to the 'South East to a point a little north of the 24th parallel and runs parallel to it thus embracing Dharabani and Chhadbet to Pakistan.
Thereafter it goes north to join the main land of Sind again and follows the boundary symbols which it follows till it reaches the Nagar Parkar area. This is a kind of a peninsula jutting to the South. On the West and East sides of Nagar Parkar there are two narrow but deep inlets. The new boundary instead of running along the banks of the inlets jumps across the two inlets at their southern extremities, thus including them in Pakistan. The inlets, therefore, are the fourth and fifth limbs of the disputed territory of India which the petitioners claim has been lost to India by the Award. The new boundary thence proceeds along the mainland till it reaches the demarcated boundary at the Jodhpur and from where the boundary is not in dispute just as the boundary from Sit Creek to Khori Creek has not been, in dispute.
In drawing up the border the Tribunal based itself on much historical matter and old maps. In the opinions of Judge Ales Bebler and the Chairman (Ambassador Entezam concurring with the Chairman) this historical material has been differently interpreted but we are not concerned with it.
The reference was also not decided as a cartographic dispute It was settled by an ad hoc award No special reasons were given by the Chairman why he included 350 sq.
miles in pakistan when he dipped the boundary to the South into the Rann of Kutch except when he came to-consider the question of, the two inlets on the two sets of Nagar Parkar.
In this connection he observed:
"The two deep inlets on either side of Naga Parkar will constitute the territory of Pakistan. Al. ready in. 1855, the Deputy Commissioner of Thar Parkar pointed out that if these inlets were to be considered Kutch territory.
(a)glance at the map will show that Parkar would be a peninsula almost entirely surrounded by Kutch territory. The Kutch State could erect fortifications and establish Custom houses at places situated many miles within the district for instance close to Verrawah, or on some of the roads which, crossing inlets of the Rann, lead from one part of this district to another. (Pak. Doc.
D. 9).
268 In my opinion it would be inequitable to recognise these inlets as foreign territory.
it would be conducive to friction and conflict. The paramount consideration of promoting peace and stability in this region compels the recognition and confirmation that this territory, also be regarded as such. The points, where the boundary will thus cut off the two inlets are these :
At the westerns inlet, the boundary will leave the boundary symbols indicated on Indian Map B-34 at the point marked thereon as "26", more precisely where the cart track is indicated as departing from the edge of the Rann in a southeasterly direction. This point is indicated as Point "L" on Map C. on the other side of the inlet, the point will be that where the camel track is indicated on Indian Map B-34 to reach the edge of the Rann; that point is indicated as point "M" on Map C.
Between Points "L" and "M", the boundary shall be a straight line.
The boundary will cross the eastern inlet at its narrowest point in a straight line between Points 'N" and "O" marked on Map C." In straightening the line to avoid a jagged boundary the Chairman gave the following reason "The boundary marked by symbols along the outer edges of the peninsula of Nagar Parkar and up to the Eastern Terminus is a jagged one. As such it is unsuitable and impracticable as an international boundary.
The boundary shall accordingly lie in conformity with the depiction on Map C between the outer points on jutting-out tongues of land from Point "M" and until the Eastern Terminus, marked as "ET" on Map C.
At no point. between the two Terminii shall the alignment of the boundary as above described be such as to include in India territory not claimed by India, as defined by the depiction of India's claim line on Map A.
It might be added that the boundary proposed by me for the greater part of its length roughly coincides with the boundary proposed by my learned colleague, Mr. Bebler." This in brief is the decision of the Tribunal. We now proceed to the consideration of the 'Matters before us.
There are seven parties before us seeking to restrain the Government of India from making over the areas of Kanjarkot, 269 Dharabanni Chhadbet and the two inlets to Pakistan by sheer executive act and insist that the necessary change can only be effected by a constitutional amendment of the territories of India as indicated in the Constitution. It may be Pointed Out that none of the petitioners contends that the Award should be rejected. This is as it should be, India was voluntarily a party to an agreement pledging its honour to respect the Award. According to J. H. Rolston (International Arbitrations from Athens to Locarno) pacific settlement of international disputes through a binding award on the basis of an undertaking voluntarily accepted is founded on the same principles as are to be found in the concept of Arbitrations in Municipal Law. The history of such arbitrations begins in modem times from the Jay Treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America of November 19, 1794 to settle the boundary disputes after Independence in 1776) through Mixed Commissions. The Commissions settled the exact position of the Sainte Croix River and the decision was regarded by both sides "as final and conclusive so that the same shall never thereafter be called in question or made the subject of dispute or difference between them." The rules of such arbitrations were settled by the Alabama Arbitrations in 1871 and the basis of the rules is the maxim Pacta Sunt Servanda. Indeed the Hague Convention of 1907 (Art. 37) contained the rule "Recourse to arbitration implies an engagement to submit loyally to Awards." There have been innumerable arbitrations between nations.
Several books contain Surveys of these arbitrations and awards. Stuyt lists 407 between 1794 and 1938 and writers like Moore, La Fontaine, Lapradelle, Darby etc. have made other compilations, the most complete being by Moore.
Nantwi brings the list down to 1967 and also lists separately the awards which were not complied with. An examination of such awards only reveals that generally an award is not accepted when the terms of submission are departed from or there are fatal omissions, contradictions or obscurities or the arbitrators substantially exceed their jurisdiction. None of these factors obtains here. Since the award has been accepted by our Government it is binding.
The parties also do not want that it be rejected. The only question raised in these matters is how it is to be implemented.
Before we deal with the problem we wish to say something about the standing of the petitioners since it appears to us that most of them have no direct interest to question the action of Government or to raise any controversy regarding the implementation of the Award.
Before the hearing commenced we questioned each petitioner as to the foundation of his claim. We discovered that ,most of the petitioners had no real or apparent stake in the areas 270 now declared to be Pakistan territory. These persons claim that they had and still have the fundamental rights guaranteed to them by Art. 19 (1) (d) (e) and (f), that is to say, the right to travel, to reside or settle down, or to acquire, and hold property in these areas. None of them has so far made any move in this direction but their apprehension is that they will be deprived of these rights in the future.. This our judgment, is too tenuous a right to be noticed by the court in administering the law and still less in enforcing fundamental rights. When we communicated our view at an earlier hearing, some more petitioners came forward Mr. Madhu Limaye puts forward the supporting plea that he had attempted to penetrate this area to reconnoiter possibilities for settlement, but was turned back. In this way he claims that he had attempted to exercise his fundamental rights and they were infringed.
Another party claims to have had a lease of grass lands some ten years ago in this area and he is now to be deprived of the right to obtain a similar lease. Lastly one of the parties put forward the plea that he lives in the adjoining territory and thus has interest in the territories proposed to be ceded to Pakistan. These petitioners too have very slender rights if at all. The only person who can claim deprivation of fundamental rights is Mr. Madhu Limaye, although in his case also the connection was temporary and almost ephemeral. However, We decided to hear him and as we were to decide the question we heard supplementary arguments from the others also to have as much assistance as possible. But we are not to be taken as establishing a precedent for this Court which declines to issue a writ of mandamus except at the instance of a party whose fundamental rights are directly and substantially invaded or are in imminent danger of being so invaded. From this point of view we would have been justified in dismissing all petitions except perhaps that of Mr. Madhu Limaye. We may now proceed to the consideration of the rival contentions.
The petitioners attempt to establish that this territory is a part of India and has always been so from the establishment of the two dominions, that India has exercised effective administrative control over it and that. giving up, a claim to it involves a cession of Indian territory which can only be effected by a constitutional amendment.
As to the details of the steps which, in the, petitioners' view establish these facts, we shall come later. This in very brief is the gist of the petitioners' case. The reply on behalf of the government of India is equally brief. It is that no, cession of territory is involved, since the boundary was always uncertain owing to the shifting nature of the sea and sands and that the effective administrative control amounted to no more than establishing a police outpost with a personnel of 171 persons for watch and ward and that too after the exchange of 271 Diplomat Notes began and that the dispute concerns the settlement of boundary which was uncertain. It is thus contended that the true areas of Pakistan and India have now been demarcated without cession of what may be called undisputed Indian territory. According to the Government of India the Award itself is the operative treaty and after demarcation of the boundary it will only be necessary to exchange letters recognising the established border. The case lies within this narrow compass.
Before we deal with the points in dispute and them relied upon by the rival parties in support thereof we wish to say a few words on the implementation of treaties in general and arbitration awards in boundary disputes in particular. The practice of countries is different but the diverse possible approaches to the question appear from an examination of the practice obtaining in the United States, France, the United Kingdom and in British India. An examination of these practices will enable us to see how the, matter is to be viewed in this case and in context of our Constitution and the existing rulings of court.
A treaty really concerns the political rather than the judicial wing of the State. When a treaty or an award after arbitration comes into existence, it has to be implemented and this can only be if all the three branches of Government, to wit, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, or any of them, possess the power to implement it. if there is any deficiency in the constitutional system it has to be removed and the State must equip itself with the, 'necessary power. in some jurisdictions the treaty or the compromise read with the Award acquires fun effect automatically in the, Municipal Law, the other body of Municipal Law notwithstanding. Such treaties and awards are self-executing'. Legislation may nevertheless be passed in aid of implementation but is usually not necessary.
In the United States of America a treaty concluded with a foreign State by the, President of the United States alone, without the consent of the Senate,, is not, according to their Constitution, binding upon the Nation and the foreign power derives no rights under it (See Mc Nair Law of Treaties p. 80 quoting from Crandall : Treaties, Making and Enforcement chapter XIV). As Chief Justice Taft puts it : a treaty is the supreme law and a treaty may repeal a statute and vice versa. It is only when the terms of a treaty require that a law must be passed that it has to be so passed : Foster v. Nielsen (2 Peters 253) See also Dickinson : Law of Nations 1057.
The position regarding the United States is quite clear. In other nations different practices exist. In the French Constitution of the 4th October, 1958 (Title VI) Article 52 enables the 272 President to negotiate and ratify treaties and he is informed of the negotiation of any international agreement not subject to ratification. Article 53 names the treaties that require ratification by law. They, inter alia involve the session, exchange or addition of territory. They take effect only after having been ratified or approved. No cession, exchange or addition of territory is valid without the consent of the populations concerned. However it is not laid down how consent is to be obtained. Treaties or agreements regularly ratified or approved have, from the time of publication, an authority superior to that of laws, provided, in the case of each agreement or treaty, that it is applied also by the other party (Article 55). If the Constitutional Council consulted by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister or the President of either assembly, has declared that an international obligation includes a clause contrary to the constitution, authorisation to ratify or approve it may be accorded only after revision of the Constitution (Article 54). The Constitution thus makes provision for all contingencies.
Even though the Kings of France had power expressly conferred by the Constitutional Charter of 1830, the French Jurists denied the jurisdiction and power to the King to code territory.
The English practice, has like all other British Institutions, :grown with time. Blackstone has the following remark :
"Whatever contracts he (the sovereign) engages in, no other power in the kingdom can legally delay, resist or annul." Kent in his Commentaries (Vol. 1 p. 175, 10th Edn.) says "the power competent to bind the nation by treaty may alienate the public domain and property by treaty." Forsyth in his Opinions gives the reason that if the Nation has conferred upon its supreme executive without reserve the right of making treaties, the alienation is valid because it is then made by the reputed will of the Nation. England, however,, soon began to make a distinction between territory ceded as a free gift in time of peace without a treaty and that ceded as a result of a war. Forsyth asked the question whether the Crown had the ,power to alienate British territory by treaty, not following the dose of a war as for instance, by a commercial treaty and answered that the proposition seemed questionable. He observed:
"I should doubt very much whether the Crown, without the authority of Parliament, would have the legal power to cede by treaty the Channel Islands to France, there having been no war, and the cession not being made as part of the adjustment of a quarrel between the two countries." 273 Without a treaty the power to cede territory in time of peace was always denied. Forsyth cites Grotius (de jure Belli et Pacis Vol. 11 c. 6. ss. 3-8) Puffendorf Vol. viii C. 12, Vattel Vol. 1 C. 20 s. 224, c. 21 s. 260, Livy Vol. IV c.. 2 s. 1 1 and Phillimore Part III c. 14 ss. 261, 262.
At the, time of the cession of East Florida to Spain Lord Loughborough maintained that the Crown possessed no prerogative to cede British Territory to a foreign State without authority of Parliament but Lord Thurlow (Lord Chancellor) said that this was based on 'the lucubrations and fancies' of foreign writers which he rejected. However Britain was then at war with Spain and the cession was under a treaty of peace. In 1863 the House of Commons debated the transfer of Ionian Islands. Lord Palmerston. observed "But with regard to cases of territory acquired by conquest during war, and not ceded by treaty, and which are not therefore British freehold, and all possessions that have been ceded by treaty and held as possessions of British Crown, there is no question that the Crown may make a treaty alienating such possession without the consent of Parliament." Lord Palmerston cited the examples of Senegal, Minorce, Florida and Isles of Banca. (See Hansard Part: Debates Vol.
CLXIX p. 230-231). These were however cessions made by treaties of peace at the end of wars.
Lord Mc Nair gives the settled law of modem times. According to him in the United Kingdom the concurrence of Parliament must always be obtained except in a very small number of cases. He opines that if the courts are required to assist in the implementation, a law must obviously be found for courts act only in accordance with law. If a law is obligatory obviously Parliament must have a say because no law can be passed except by Parliament. However, even if a law be required, and yet the Crown enters into a treaty, the courts take the act as final unless a law stands in the way. In other words unless there be a law conflicting with the treaty, the treaty must stand. In this connection it is profitable to read what Lord Phillimore (then Sir Robert Phillimore) said in the Parliament Belge case(1). That case was reversed on appeal in 5 P.D. 197 but on another point.
See also Walker v. Baird(2) .As was observed by Lord Atkin in Attorney General for Canada v. Attorney General for Ontario(3) the position may be summed up thus : there is a distinction between (1) the formation and(2) the performance of the obligation. The first is an executive act the second a legal act if a law is required.
(1) 4 P.D. 129. (3) [1937] A.C. 326 at 347.
(2) [1892] A.C. 491.
274 The performance then has no force apart from a law that is to say unless Parliament assents to it and Parliament then accords its approval to the, first executive act. The treaties created by executive action bind them, contracting parties and, therefore, means must be found for their implementation within the law. This is illustrated by a few examples. The Executive authority in the State cannot acquire new rights against the citizens by making treaties with foreign powers. Therefore whenever peace treaties involved municipal execution many statutes had to be passed. Again new offences cannot be created by the, more fact of conventions on entered into with other powers.
Both principles obtain in India. The Indian statute book contains numerous examples of conventions which have led to the passing of Municipal Laws. The Civil Court Manual devotes many pages to such statutes, too numerous to be mentioned here and the penal law of India also affords examples One such is the law against obscenity in India which was the direct result of 4 convention. In the United Kingdom there is almost a binding convention that cession of British territory requires approval of Parliament in the form of a statute but it must clearly have been the freehold of Britain.
But even here Parliamentary sanction is not required for cession or abandonment of territory acquired previously by conquest or cession or otherwise wrongly in British possession. The cases of abandonment by the Crown of sovereignty over the various mandated territories are in point. Many of them were given up without an Act of Parliament. The protocol respecting the boundary between Tanganiyika territory and the Belgian mandated territory of Ruonda-ulandi, on August 5, 1924 involving a small territory was never enacted as a law. In 1925 it was ruled that cession of. territory which never formed part of a self governing dominion was a royal prerogative although it was desirable that approval of Parliament be obtained. A giving up of doubtful claims to territory is not considered to be of the same standing as a cession of territory known to be that of the Crown. The tendency however is to have parliamentary sanction when British territory is ceded.
This is provided in the very treaty itself and it is made subject to Parliament's ;approval. The present practice of Crown is to obtain either prior sanction of Parliament or to seek ratification after it. This is done by laying the treaty on the, table of both Houses for 21 days, after which time it is treated as ratified. Although the practice since 1924 is to submit treaties to Parliament by laying them on the table of the two Houses (known as the Penson by rule), there have been in the past numerous instances of treaties implemented by the Crown without reference to Parliament.
These exceptions were connected with circumstances of convenience and public policy that is to say to avert a war, for consideration of territory or for rectification of boundaries. A few examples of such action in time of peace may be given. In 1824 in treaty with Netherlands, Great Britain ceded Sumatra and the settlement of Bencollen. In 1859-60 the Bay Islands were transferred to Honduras. In 1867 in treaty with Netherlands an exchange of territory took place.
The Orange River Territory was transferred by an order in Council. In 1697 by the Treaty of Reyswick Hudson Bay territory was given back to the French. In 1813 by the Treaties of Stockholm the Island of Guadelope was ceded to Spain. A cession of Mosquito Shore was made to Nicaragua.
All those were in time of peace and without Any reference to Parliament Hertslett's Treaties.
In British India section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 created a presumption in favour of such transfer which on the issue of a notification was to be held by courts to be valid. In 1872 Scidia was given the pergannah of Broach.
In 1803 Pudokottah State was ceded the Districts of Kullanelly in Tanjore. In 1806 Sambalpur was given to the Mahara a of Nagpur and in 1871 Scidia was given certain villages in Jhansi. [See Aitchoson's trees Vol. 3 (p. 331), Vol. 4 (p. 214) and (99)]. All these were without intervention of Parliament.
It will thus appear that there is no settled practice. The least that can be said is that cession in time of war in the United Kingdom can always be made by the Crown but in time of peace it can only be made by Parliamentary sanction whether obtained directly or under the Ponson by rule. In British India parliamentary sanction was not necessary. In Damodar Gordhan v. Deoran Kanji(1) it was laid down that "the general and abstract doctrine laid down by the High Court at Bombay that it is beyond the power of the British Crown without the consent of the Imperial Parliament to make a cession of territory within the jurisdiction of any of the British Courts in India, in time of peace, to a foreign power, is erroneous." The question is one of domestic as well as International Law and we have been at pains to set down the practice of some countries and that obtaining in British India before dealing with this problem in the light of our Constitution and the facts obtaining here. It will appear from the other analysis that the United States of America and the French Constitutions have a clear guidance on the subject. In England, as no written Constitution exists, difference is made between treaties of peace when the Crown acts without, obtaining the approval of Parliament and cession in peace time when such approval must be had. But even so a distinction is made in the case of British possessions abroad and the United Kingdom. Again a difference is made in cases involving minor (1) [1876] 1 Appeal cases, 332.
276 changes where boundaries have to be ascertained and adjusted. In British India advantage was taken of Section 113 of the Evidence Act in cases of cessions to Native States, Prince or Ruler. That section is now obsolete and has been omitted in Burma and Ceylong but is still borne on our statute, although no longer required. We may now pass on to the Indian Constitution and the facts of this case to see how it views this matter.
The Constitution did not include any clear direction about treaties such as is to be found in the United States of America and the French Constitutions. Article I of the Constitution defined the territory of India. It provides that India shall be a Union of States. In the Constitution as originally enacted First Schedule classified States as A, B, C and D. After the Seventh Amendment in 1956 it is now provided that the States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule. Clause (3) ,of the First Article was also amended by the Seventh Amendment but as the amendment is not material we may read here that clause as it is today. It reads :
"(3) The territory of India shall comprise-(a) the territories of the States;
(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and (c) such other territories as may be acquired.' Article 3 enables Parliament by law to alter the boundaries of the existing States and it includes the power (b) to increase the area, of any State (c) diminish the area of any State or to alter the name of any State. Then there are items Nos. 14 and 15 in the Seventh Schedule which provide as follows "14. Entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties, agreements and conventions with foreign countries.
15. War and peace." These entries enable laws to be enacted on these topics.
They are to be read with Article 253 which occurs in Part XI (Relations between the Union and the States) Chapter 1 (Legislative Relations) and is headed Distribution of Legislative Powers, it provides.
"253. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law 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 277 decision made at any international conference, association or other body." In point of fact it adds nothing to the legislative entries 14 and 15 above quoted but confers exclusive power of lawmaking upon". Parliament. As the marginal note correctly represents the idea underlying the Article, it may be, read--Legislation for giving effect to International agreements-and the article only says that Parliament i
