• 0
tulasi kumar

INDIA'S SOVEREIGNTY VIOLATION.

Question

Our constitution says SC being an important organ, will be the highest court of appeal, nothing could be discussed against its verdict even in parliamentary sessions.
 the story is, there was a production sharing agreement b/w RIL and petroleum ministry, according that agreement both parties would get redressed by london court, if any dispute arises out of this contract in future.
now dispute came to fore because petro ministry taxing much on production in some fields, subsequently RIL reopened those clauses of agreement in front of SC, ironically SC approved RIL's intention of getting redressed by london court.!!!!
does not it amount to derogation of higher dignity that been conferred on SC,??
 SC, being an important constituted organ, not its act amount to violation of india's sovereignty ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 answers to this question

  • 0

if it is so it is really a breach of india's sovereignty over its natural resources but bro if u have any article (pdf etc.) regarding this post plz post it here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

i got the answer.

It was agreed beforehand by RIL and GoI that any dispute will be decided not by SC but by court in London. The jurisdiction of SC is deliberately excluded in this case. It is common to find this kind of arrangement in PPP contracts (another example was dispute redressal between GMR and Maldives not by Maldivian court but by court in Singapore).

 

Indian laws here would be interpreted as 'in accordance with Indian policy prerogatives'. The agreement calls for international arbitration to maintain neutrality and non-partisanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

first of all thanx for the post but RIL is an indian company than how can indian govt. come with such an agreement and about GMR it can be possible bcoz GMR is an indian firm (outsider for maldives) but how can indian govt. can sign such a deal with indian firm itself...is it not a case which can be examined by CAG plz expain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

i got some info in laxmikanth regarding your query.

 

There are different kinds of jurisdictions of supreme court viz original jurisdiction, writ jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction etc.

 

original jurisdiction provides supreme court the right of hearing cases of federal nature, for example dispute b/w states and center, b/w states etc.

this right of supreme court is exclusive, means no other court has the right to here such cases involving centre and/or states as redressal seekers.

 

 besides this kind of jurisdiction, constitution also provides some exceptions to this jurisdiction viz,

 

1, this jurisdiction doesnot extend to cases involving pre constitution agreements.

 

2, this jurisdiction does not extend to cases involving agreements, where that agreement specifically provides that the said jurisdiction does not extend to such a dispute.


 

and some other exceptions.

 

 

HERE AGREEMENT B/W CENTER AND RIL HAS DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED THE JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT.

Pankaj namdev likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 i dont find any specific mention for state or non state entities involving in the dispute, but provisions that dealt about in laxmikanth just speak about agreements of federal nature, i dont think you are convinced !

Edited by tulasi kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@tulasi kumar  i have also referred laxmikant on page 23.9 power of judicial review says that the constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challanged in SC on following grounds

1) it infringes fundamental rights

2)it is outside the authority which had framed it 

3)it is repugnant to the constitution

 

can SC exercise this judicial review in this case on basis of reason 2..as it is repugnant to the indian people interest and it is outside the authority which has framed it (in this case the GoI and RIL) 

 

and about satisfaction dude u r a very good friend indeed......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Article 131 of the constitution says that any disputes arised out of treaty will not comes under original jurisdiction of the SC If that treaty explicitly mentions to do so. but it will not be an obstacle to SC to declare such treaty as unconstitutional if it violates any provision of the constitution (Judicial review).--------Judicial Supremacy over treaty if it is violates otherwise treaty supremacy over judiciary

tulasi kumar likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now