SOURCE: AFI
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court of India, seeking the cancellation of licenses for Indian firms exporting arms and military equipment to Israel. The petition, filed by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’souza, comes in light of India’s defense exports to Israel during the ongoing Gaza conflict. The petition argues that the export of weapons to Israel is in violation of India’s international law obligations, particularly during an armed conflict that has raised concerns about humanitarian issues. Additionally, the petition invokes Article 51C of the Indian Constitution, which calls for the state to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, as well as the fundamental right to life and equality.
The central claim of the petition rests on the argument that India’s export of arms to Israel during the Gaza conflict contradicts its legal commitments under international law. The petitioners argue that by supplying military equipment to a state engaged in conflict, India may be indirectly contributing to violations of international humanitarian law. This, they claim, conflicts with Article 51C of the Constitution, which requires the Indian state to promote adherence to international legal standards.
Furthermore, the petitioners emphasize that the right to life, a fundamental right enshrined in the Indian Constitution, could be undermined if India facilitates the export of arms that may be used in conflicts resulting in civilian casualties. The PIL calls for the cancellation of existing licenses and a moratorium on new ones to prevent further exports of arms and military equipment to Israel.
A defense analyst speaking to idrw.org pointed out that such PILs are often filed with limited understanding of the complexities involved in international defense trade. The analyst stated, “This PIL seems to have been filed for public relations purposes rather than genuine legal concern. The honorable Supreme Court is likely to dismiss this case due to its fictitious nature, as it misunderstands how arms export agreements and international obligations function in practice.”
India and Israel share a robust defense partnership that spans several decades, with Israel emerging as one of India’s top defense suppliers. This relationship includes the transfer of cutting-edge technologies, joint research, and development projects, such as missile systems and advanced radar technologies. The partnership is not just about sales; it involves deeper cooperation on counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, and joint training exercises, all of which contribute to India’s security apparatus.
Given the strategic significance of this defense relationship, analysts believe that halting arms exports to Israel would not only affect bilateral ties but also India’s defense capabilities. India benefits from Israeli technology in areas like unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), missile defense systems, and cyber warfare tools, which are crucial to its national security.
Moreover, defense exports to Israel are in full compliance with international laws and treaties, including the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which India signed in 2014. This ensures that arms exports are subject to stringent oversight, preventing their use in human rights violations or illegal conflicts. India’s defense exports are carefully reviewed to ensure they do not contravene international law, making the petition’s claims questionable in this regard.