Supreme Court rejects request to cancel arms exports to Israel

New Delhi, September 10 (KNN) In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking cancellation of arms export licenses to Israel.

The court’s decision, handed down on Monday, reaffirms the principle that foreign policy matters fall exclusively within the competence of the EU government.

The PIL, filed by a group of eminent personalities including former diplomats, bureaucrats, social activists and notable personalities like economist Jean Dreze, activist Harsh Mander and musician TM Krishna, argued that India’s arms exports to Israel violate the Genocide Convention.

The petitioners cited the ongoing conflict in Gaza and recent allegations of genocide against Israel before the International Court of Justice.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, India was obliged to take steps to prevent aiding Israel in its actions against the Palestinians.

The petition specifically mentions three Indian companies involved in the manufacturing and export of arms to Israel, with particular emphasis on the Adani Group’s joint ventures.

The Supreme Court, however, firmly rejected these arguments. In its judgment, it stressed that it cannot interfere in matters of foreign policy, which are the exclusive domain of the Union government.

The court said: “In order to grant the remedies sought by the applicants, the court should rule on the allegations made by them against Israel,” indicating its reluctance to pass judgment on complex geopolitical issues.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, termed the petitioners’ demands as “far-fetched”, saying decisions related to foreign affairs and international relations are solely the prerogative of the central government.

In a pointed observation, the Court drew a parallel, asking whether, following the applicants’ logic, it should also ask the government to cancel oil import licenses from Russia because of its conflict with Ukraine.

This decision underscores the judiciary’s position in favour of maintaining the separation of powers, particularly in international relations and foreign policy. It also highlights the ongoing debate on the balance between humanitarian concerns and strategic national interests in India’s foreign policy decisions.

The case has drawn attention to India’s arms export policy and its geopolitical positioning in the complex landscape of Middle East politics.

While the petitioners have argued for a humanitarian approach based on international conventions, the court’s decision reaffirms the government’s authority in shaping India’s foreign policy and international trade relations.

(KNN Office)