India exporting arms to Israel amounts to assisting genocide and violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, Supreme Court lawyer and human rights activist Prashant Bhushan has said.
He was interacting with students of St. Albert’s College (Autonomous) after delivering a keynote address on ‘Democracy and Panchayati Raj’ organised by the Economics department of the college here on Saturday (August 17, 2024).
“We are filing a petition in the Supreme Court regarding India’s exports of arms to Israel. The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestine people. India is a signatory of the international convention against genocide, which says that no country can assist genocide. Exporting arms, which when used in this genocide amounts to assisting genocide,” said Mr. Bhushan.
Also, Article 21 enshrined in the Constitution protecting life and liberty is not just restricted to Indian citizens. The Constitution says the State of India cannot violate anyone’s rights guaranteed under Article 21 even if he is a non-citizen. If the Indian government exports arms to Israel, which is used in the genocide against the Palestinian citizens, then that amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of the Palestine people, he said.
“But we know that it is not at all certain that the court will decide in accordance with what the law is or what the Constitution demands. For, some times, the courts just abdicate their responsibility by saying that this is a matter of foreign policy or that it is a matter of expert opinion and we cannot go into it and so on,” said Mr. Bhushan.
He further elaborated on his point of abdication of responsibility of courts in the context of the litigation around the Vizhinjam port. Scientific papers by an expert showed that construction of the breakwater wall perpendicular to the coastline is leading to erosion of the beaches and the coast on the northern side of the wall and accretion of sand on the southern side. The satellite pictures of the Vizhinjam area between 2018 and now clearly show that.
“This issue was raised in the court and the court directed the government to form another committee to examine it. The government formed the committee headed by the same expert. They have given a report, which in my opinion is totally dishonest, that attributed the erosion and accretion to a 2017 cyclone and global warming and that it has nothing to do with the construction of the breakwater wall,” he said.
Challenge in such cases
Usually, the government-appointed experts do the government’s bidding. The challenge in such cases is that the courts go by the so-called expert reports, which may be dishonest and bogus. “In my view, it is an abdication of the court’s responsibility and the courts have a duty to get to the bottom of it,” Mr. Bhushan said.
On the question of whether the Mullaperiyar dam issue could be put to referendum in a system of direct democracy, Mr. Bhushan said a decision taken by the people of Kerala through a referendum cannot override a legally binding agreement between Kerala and Tamil Nadu. However, that impediment can be overcome if it is demonstrated before the court backed by independent scientific opinion that the dam is indeed unsafe and that if it breaks it will cause havoc destroying the lives and livelihoods of lakhs of people downstream.
“In such a case, the Supreme Court would say that the right to life and livelihood of the people of Kerala trumps any agreement between the two governments. If there was no impediment by way of such an agreement and it was only the decision of the Kerala government to retain the dam, then that being a mere executive decision will be overridden by the collective decision of the people of Kerala expressed through a referendum,” he said.
