Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

There has been an evolution of the philosophy of the role of international treaties to which India is party to with relation to the Indian Constitution. In the case of Magan Bhai Patel v Union of India, the court held that if a treaty or international agreement restricts the rights of the citizens or modifies the law of the state would require to have a legislative measure. Eg. If India is a party to an international agreement to stop the killing of species of turtle, it restricts the right of trade of certain fisherman by prohibiting killing of the turtle. If this treaty is to be enforced in India, the Indian Parliament needs to pass a domestic legislation regarding prohibition of the killing of such turtle species.

Which of the following is an incorrect statement in regards to International law and India?

International treaties can on their own override domestic laws.

India generally follows that merely affirming a treaty by way of ratifying it by the assent of the executive unless the treaty requires ratification by way of an act of the legislature.

There has been an evolution of the philosophy of the role of international treaties to which India is party to with relation to the Indian Constitution. In the case of Magan Bhai Patel v Union of India, the court held that if a treaty or international agreement restricts the rights of the citizens or modifies the laws of the state would require to have a legislative measure. E.g. If India is a party to an international agreement to stop the killing of a species of turtle, it restricts the right to trade of certain fishermen by prohibiting killing of the turtle. If this treaty is to be enforced in India, the Indian Parliament needs to pass a domestic legislation regarding prohibition of the killing of such turtle species.

If no such right is restricted then it does not need to have a legislative measure to enact it or give rise to some weight in domestic law in the treaty. It is also a very clear of Indian law that international treaties cannot on their own override domestic law. Hence, these treaties which are not enabled by the legislature will not have the same force in law if there is a contradictory law provided for. However, in the case of Sheela Barse v Secretary Children's Aid Society, the Supreme Court held that India had ratified conventions regarding the protection of children and this placed an obligation on the State Government to implement these principles. This was a case in which there were no contradictory laws and as they were supplementing the law already in force the court held that the treaty could be applied directly to Indian law.