An exclusive Legal Analysis of India’s Stance on Intervention in the Minority Crisis in Bangladesh in consonance with the perspectives from the Indian Constitution and the International Law.
In an interesting set of events, the Apex Court on Monday, 24th February, declined to entertain a PIL seeking intervention to protect Hindus in Bangladesh from targeted violence being inflicted upon the minority.
The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the PIL filed by Rajesh Dhanda, Chairman of the Bhagwan Jagannath Rath Yatra Mahotsav Committee in Ludhiana and Vice Chairman of the ISKCON Mandir Steering Board.
At the outset, the bench expressed its reluctance to interfere in matters concerning the internal affairs of a neighboring sovereign nation.
“It pertains to foreign affairs… how can this court comment upon the affairs of another country? It would be so odd if this Court interferes with another country, that too a neighbor!”
CJI Khanna remarked.
Representing the petitioner, senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi sought permission to withdraw the PIL following the court’s observations.
The bench granted this request, noting:
“Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition and states that the petitioner may approach the Government.”
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The petitioner rose following concerns;
- A request to extend the deadline for submitting applications for citizenship by Hindus who fled Bangladesh;
- A direction to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to provide aid and assistance to Hindu minorities in Bangladesh through the Indian High Commission stationed there; and,
- An appeal to create global pressure on Bangladesh, in accordance with the international law, to bring a halt to the ongoing atrocities against minorities in the neighboring country;
Can a State, in any instance, interfere with the affairs of another Sovereign State? Here’s what the International Law says
The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the PIL concerning Hindu minorities in Bangladesh creates an intriguingly bizarre void. However, it is important to acknowledge that the ruling is in strict obedience with the well-established principle of non-intervention in international law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX) of 1965 boldly states that no state has the right to interfere, directly or indirectly, in the internal or external affairs of another sovereign state. This includes armed intervention, economic or political coercion, and any form of interference aimed at undermining another state’s sovereignty.
The principle has been reinforced in cases such as the Nicaragua v. United States (1986) case, where the International Court of Justice condemned U.S. interference in Nicaragua’s internal matters.
Also, the UN General Assembly’s handling of Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia (1979–1989) affirmed a consistent stance against foreign interference despite humanitarian concerns being involved.
In a separate development, the African Union’s Constitutive Act of 2000 introduced a paradigm shift by allowing intervention in cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, thus acknowledging that sovereignty cannot serve as a shield for mass atrocities.
What does the Indian Constitution say about interference and Foreign Affairs?
1. Article 51 – Promotion of International Peace and Security, explicitly states that:
- India shall promote international peace and security;
- Maintain just and honorable relations between nations;
- Foster respect for international law and treaty obligations;
- Encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.
This provision reinforces India’s commitment to non-intervention and peaceful diplomatic resolution of international matters rather than judicial interference. While DPSPs are not enforceable by courts, they serve as guiding principles for state policy.
2. Article 73 – Extent of the Executive Power of the Union
Article 73 states that the executive power of the Union extends to matters related to foreign affairs, diplomacy, and relations with other countries.
This implies that issues concerning foreign states, such as protecting minorities in another country, fall exclusively within the domain of the executive (Government of India) and not the judiciary.
3. Seventh Schedule – Union List (Entry 10 & 14)
The Union List, which defines subjects under the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament and the Union Government, enlists:
- Entry 10: Foreign affairs, diplomatic relations, and treaties.
- Entry 14: Matters related to the United Nations, participation in international conferences, and international obligations.
It is noteworthy from the point of view of understanding the issue that by advising the petitioner to approach the government, the Supreme Court has redirected the matter to the executive branch, which is better equipped and constitutionally backed to handle foreign relations and diplomatic engagements.
Case Details : RAJESH DHANDA Versus UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND ORS; W.P.(C) No. 153/2025
KEYWORDS: Supreme Court, PIL, Bangladesh, United Nations (UN), Constitution of India, International Law
About Author
Tanishq, a law student at the Department of Legal Studies and Research, Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, is a budding legal writer with a sharp eye for evolving legal landscapes. Passionate about Intellectual Property Rights, Constitutional Law, and Women and Child Safety Laws, Tanishq actively explores contemporary legal nuances through writing and research.
