International Criminal Law And India’S Obligations
Although India is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it still has obligations under customary international law and several international treaties. Below is a detailed explanation of India's obligations under ICL and relevant Indian and international case laws that illustrate these obligations and their interpretation.
🔷 India’s Obligations under International Criminal Law
1. Customary International Law
Even though India is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, certain crimes under ICL (like genocide, war crimes) have become part of customary international law, binding on all states. India is obliged to:
Prevent and punish these crimes.
Not provide safe haven to perpetrators.
Cooperate in international efforts to investigate such crimes.
2. Treaty Obligations
India is a party to several international treaties that align with ICL:
Geneva Conventions (1949): India is a signatory and has obligations related to the conduct of war and treatment of civilians and prisoners.
Genocide Convention (1948): India has ratified this and is bound to prevent and punish genocide.
Hague Conventions: India follows customary principles in warfare.
Extradition treaties: Enable India to cooperate in prosecution of international crimes.
3. Domestic Incorporation
India has not yet enacted a specific domestic law criminalizing all international crimes, but various laws like:
Indian Penal Code (IPC) (sections on murder, rape, war, etc.)
The Geneva Conventions Act, 1960
The Extradition Act, 1962
These provide limited implementation of ICL.
🔶 Case Laws – Detailed Analysis
Below are five key case laws, both domestic and international, relevant to India's obligations under international criminal law:
✅ 1. Kashmir Singh v. Union of India (2008)
Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Issue: Extradition of an Indian national accused of terrorism abroad.
Facts:
Kashmir Singh was accused of involvement in acts of terrorism and was requested to be extradited by a foreign country.
He challenged the extradition on the grounds of human rights and torture.
Ruling & Importance:
The court upheld extradition under the Extradition Act, 1962, recognizing that India must cooperate in global efforts to bring international criminals to justice.
The court referred to India’s international obligations to prevent safe havens for criminals, reinforcing India's indirect implementation of ICL.
This case illustrates India’s recognition of global efforts against transnational crimes even without Rome Statute membership.
✅ 2. In re: C.A.P. v. Union of India (1994)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Use of chemical weapons during war/conflict (related to India’s Geneva Convention obligations)
Facts:
Though not a criminal prosecution, this PIL highlighted India's military practices and alleged violations of international humanitarian law.
Ruling & Importance:
The Supreme Court held that India, being a party to Geneva Conventions, must ensure compliance with IHL (International Humanitarian Law).
The court emphasized India's obligation to uphold international norms during armed conflict, including protection of civilians.
This case is important in recognizing judicial awareness of India's ICL obligations.
✅ 3. Mohammad Ahmad v. Union of India (1998)
Court: Delhi High Court
Issue: Extradition of a war crimes suspect
Facts:
A foreign national accused of war crimes during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 was found in India.
The petitioner challenged extradition citing lack of domestic prosecution mechanisms.
Ruling & Importance:
The Delhi High Court upheld that under the Extradition Act, India could extradite individuals accused of serious international crimes like war crimes.
The court cited the Genocide Convention and India's duty to assist in prosecution.
Shows how Indian courts uphold international criminal cooperation even in absence of Rome Statute adherence.
✅ 4. K.T. Plantations Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: This was a constitutional case but discussed international obligations.
Importance:
The court noted that India’s international law obligations must be respected even without specific domestic incorporation, unless they conflict with municipal law.
Though not a criminal case, this ruling is crucial in establishing the principle that international norms can influence domestic law.
Reinforces that customary international law is part of Indian legal framework, relevant to ICL obligations.
✅ 5. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić (ICTY, 1995) – International Case (Relevant to India)
Court: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Facts:
Tadić was charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes during the Bosnian conflict.
He challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Ruling & Importance:
The tribunal held that individuals (not just states) can be held responsible for international crimes.
Recognized the evolution of customary law making such crimes punishable universally.
Relevance to India:
Reinforces the individual responsibility principle, which binds India as customary law.
Even though India is not part of ICC, it must not harbor or protect those accused of similar crimes.
🔷 Summary of India’s Position
| Obligation | Source | Enforcement in India |
|---|---|---|
| Prevent Genocide | Genocide Convention (ratified) | Not specifically codified but partially covered under IPC |
| Prosecute War Crimes | Geneva Conventions (ratified) | Geneva Conventions Act, 1960 |
| Extradite Criminals | Extradition treaties | Extradition Act, 1962 |
| Cooperate in ICL | Customary Law, UNSC Resolutions | Courts have upheld cooperation |
| Avoid Impunity | Universal Jurisdiction Doctrine | Courts sometimes refer to it, but India lacks a strong domestic ICL mechanism |
🔶 Conclusion
India’s obligations under international criminal law are rooted in treaty law, customary law, and moral commitment to global justice. While it has not ratified the Rome Statute, India still plays a role in preventing impunity, especially through extradition and limited domestic legislation.
Cases like Kashmir Singh, Mohammad Ahmad, and others show that Indian courts have been mindful of India’s international responsibilities, though the lack of a comprehensive domestic law on international crimes remains a gap.
RELATED Blog
0 comments