India’s State Practice on Reservations to International Human Rights Treaties

Human rights are the rights of individuals that have been established to be inherent, inalienable, and indivisible; inherent because everyone, on the face of the earth, should have dignity, equality and justice. These are human rights which cross national borders and underpin today’s international relations. This paper critically explores how India Treaty on reservations to international human rights treaties with regard to sovereignty and the human rights regime. During the formulation of reservation, a state may pre-advise other states under Article 19 of the first part of the VCLT subject to the provisions that the reservation must not defeat the object and purpose of the treaty. Objections to CEDAW and ICCPR by India demonstrate a concern that pervades most countries of how domestic constitutional provisions conflict with international legal standards. The Indian stance on CEDAW Articles 5(a) and 16, which covered the issue on gender equality within family and social productive roles, on the ground of personal laws which are in contradiction with religious and cultural practice. Likewise, protection given by India in their interpretative declaration to Article 1 of ICCPR which deals with self-determination expresses its apprehensions relating to sovereignty, especially about its territory, that is, Jammu and Kashmir. These positions, as much as they sought to protect the internal agendas of states, have elicited the ire of states such as Sweden and Germany which assert that such reservations defeat the very purpose and legal commitment of treaty making. The work relies upon treaty monitoring reports, including those from the Human Rights Committee which have time and again urged on India to limit the number of reservations.The Human Rights Committee, in cases such as Rawle Kennedy v. The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago has pointed out that state reservations have to be applied in line with the object and purpose of the treaty to maintain the universality and efficacy of human rights principles. As the following sections compare India’s practices with the International legal standards, this paper seeks to establish the ways of balancing sovereignty with human rights universality. It provides suggestions for promoting Treaty-Based Compliance; Improving India’s Role in Human Rights; and Strengthening International Legal System.