Why India’s Strategic Defence Pact with the UAE May Prompt Judicial Review of Executive Power and Parliamentary Oversight

On a high-profile diplomatic mission to Abu Dhabi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi publicly affirmed that India stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the United Arab Emirates in response to recent violent attacks that have shaken the region, thereby signalling a deepening of bilateral solidarity. During the same visit, the two governments concluded a strategic defence pact that formally establishes a framework for cooperation across a spectrum of security domains, including joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, and coordinated efforts to counter maritime threats in the Arabian Gulf. The pact was signed in the presence of senior officials from both nations, underscoring a mutual commitment to enhance defence preparedness and to project a united front against any future destabilising actions that could threaten regional peace and economic stability. By publicly condemning the attacks and concurrently formalising the defence accord, Prime Minister Modi aimed to demonstrate India’s proactive role in regional security architecture while also reinforcing the strategic partnership that has evolved between New Delhi and Abu Dhabi over recent years. The signing ceremony, set against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical tensions, therefore represents not only a symbolic gesture of solidarity but also a concrete legal instrument that will require implementation mechanisms, inter-agency coordination, and potential legislative oversight to ensure its provisions are effectively operationalised within the existing defence and foreign-policy frameworks of both countries. Observers anticipate that the agreement will facilitate joint procurement of defence equipment, enable regular maritime patrols, and create a platform for coordinated diplomatic engagement on security matters, thereby potentially reshaping the strategic balance in the Gulf region.

One question is whether the executive’s authority to conclude a strategic defence pact with a foreign state necessitates parliamentary ratification under the constitutional scheme governing international agreements that affect national security, defence procurement, and fiscal commitments. Article 73 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to make laws for the whole territory of India, while Article 74 vests the conduct of foreign affairs in the executive, creating a nuanced interplay that courts have interpreted as requiring legislative oversight when an agreement imposes legally binding obligations on the state. The Supreme Court, in cases such as V.J. Soni v. Union of India and S.R. Bommai, has emphasized that while the executive may negotiate treaties, any treaty that alters the legal rights of citizens or mandates expenditures beyond ordinary executive discretion must be placed before Parliament for debate and approval. Consequently, a strategic defence pact that envisages joint procurement, shared intelligence infrastructure, and potential financial contributions to joint exercises could be deemed a treaty with substantive fiscal and security implications, thereby invoking the constitutional requirement that Parliament be duly informed and, where appropriate, enact enabling legislation.

Another possible view is whether a citizen or civil society organization could seek judicial review of the strategic defence pact on grounds that the executive exceeded its constitutional authority by entering an agreement without requisite parliamentary scrutiny. The Supreme Court has traditionally entertained public-interest litigation challenging executive actions that allegedly contravene constitutional provisions, as illustrated in Union of India v. J.R. Tarapore where the Court examined the limits of executive discretion in foreign policy matters impacting domestic rights. If a petitioner were to argue that the pact imposes obligations affecting defence procurement that fall under the ambit of the Defence Procurement Procedure, the Court might assess whether the executive’s action infringes statutory mandates requiring prior approval from the Ministry of Defence and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Should the court find that the executive failed to observe the procedural safeguards prescribed by the relevant statutes, it could declare the pact ultra violet, render it unenforceable, or direct the government to seek parliamentary endorsement before the agreement can acquire legal effect.

A further legal issue concerns the status of the strategic defence pact under international law, specifically whether it qualifies as a treaty requiring registration with the United Nations under Article 102 of the UN Charter and whether its provisions bind India under the principle of pacta sunt servanda. If the agreement is deemed a treaty, India would be obligated to honour its commitments in good faith, and any subsequent deviation could trigger a breach claim before an international adjudicative forum or necessitate diplomatic negotiations to amend or terminate the pact. Moreover, the pact’s provisions on intelligence sharing and joint operations may intersect with India’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other counter-terrorism frameworks, raising questions about compliance with international human-rights norms. Consequently, the foreign-policy dimension of the pact invites scrutiny not only from a domestic constitutional perspective but also from an international law standpoint, where adherence to treaty-making protocols and respect for established norms become pivotal to maintaining India’s credibility on the global stage.

Finally, the practical implementation of the strategic defence pact will likely require the issuance of detailed implementing agreements, which must be examined for conformity with the Defence Procurement Procedure, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, and the Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order to ensure statutory compliance. Should any of these subordinate instruments impose financial obligations or procurement preferences that deviate from existing statutory frameworks, affected parties may invoke the courts through writ petitions alleging violation of procedural due-process requirements and seeking a declaration of invalidity. In parallel, parliamentary committees overseeing defence and foreign affairs may request briefing papers and undertake scrutiny of the pact’s strategic implications, thereby providing an additional layer of democratic oversight that could influence any future amendment or renewal of the agreement. Thus, while the signing of the strategic defence pact symbolizes a robust bilateral partnership, its legal sustainability will hinge upon meticulous adherence to constitutional mandates, statutory procedures, and international treaty obligations, ensuring that India’s national interest and rule of law are concurrently upheld.