The Supreme Court has rejected the petition seeking direction to the Center to stop the export of weapons to Israel. On Monday, the Supreme Court has said that the court cannot interfere in the field of the country’s foreign policy. The court said that no such ban can be imposed by the court because such decisions are taken by the government in view of the economic and geopolitical situation. The Supreme Court said that such a petition cannot be accepted because Israel is a sovereign country and cannot come under the jurisdiction of Indian courts. It is worth noting that Ashok Kumar Sharma and others had filed a PIL through Prashant Bhushan demanding a direction to the Center to cancel the licenses of Indian firms exporting weapons and other military equipment to Israel and not to give them new licenses.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, has said that Indian companies have signed contracts to export weapons and military equipment to Israel. Now they can be sued for violating these contracts. Therefore, they cannot be stopped from supplying. During the hearing of the case, the bench said, “We cannot interfere in the field of foreign policy of the country.” The conflict between Israel and Hamas has been going on for the last one year. Thousands of Palestinians have died in Israel’s war on Gaza. According to Gaza, this figure has crossed 40 thousand. Earlier in an attack, Hamas fighters crossed the Gaza border and attacked Israel and killed about 1,200 people on 7 October 2023.
Prashant Bhushan gave these arguments
On the petition, lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued that the Indian government has signed UN agreements, so it is bound by international agreements that do not allow arms supply to any country involved in genocide and war crimes. He said that Israel is killing innocent people by bombing schools and hospitals and at a time when there is a war in Gaza, supplying arms by India would be a violation of the Genocide Convention. On this, the bench said, “You are assuming that it can be used for genocide. You have raised a delicate issue but the courts should not interfere in this matter. The government can evaluate what impact it will have on Indian companies as it is aware of the situation.”
‘Stop importing oil from Russia?’
The court said that a similar situation could arise in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine in which an argument could be made not to import oil from Russia. “India imports oil from Russia. Can the Supreme Court say that you should stop importing oil from Russia? This decision is a matter of foreign policy and depends on the needs of the country.” The court also gave other examples related to the state of economic relations with Bangladesh or Maldives.
The court should not support such petitions- Solicitor General
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, informed the Court that the petitioners have chosen to use words like aggression and genocide against the actions of a sovereign country which are not acceptable in diplomatic discourse. He further said that the Court should not endorse the allegations made in the petition by issuing notice on such petitions.
