India as a responsible member of the international community, actively participates in shaping and adhering to international law through the ratification and implementation of numerous treaties and conventions. However, the journey from signing an international treaty to its effective implementation within the domestic legal framework is a nuanced process, deeply rooted in India's constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations.

At the outset, it's crucial to understand that in India, the executive branch holds the power to enter into international treaties. This power flows primarily from Article 73 of the Constitution, which states that the executive power of the Union extends to matters with respect to which Parliament has the power to make laws. This effectively means the Union government can negotiate and sign treaties.

However, the mere signing or even ratification of an international treaty by the executive does not automatically make it part of domestic law in India. This is where the concept of "transformation" or "incorporation" comes into play. India largely follows the dualist theory of international law, meaning that international treaties require a specific legislative act by Parliament to be incorporated into domestic law and become enforceable by Indian courts.

This principle is not explicitly stated in a single article but is derived from the overall scheme of the Constitution, particularly Article 253, which is pivotal. Article 253 empowers Parliament to "make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body." This article grants Parliament the legislative competence to enact laws specifically to give effect to international obligations.

Without such a legislative act, an international treaty generally binds India on the international plane but cannot be directly enforced by individuals in Indian courts. This position has been consistently affirmed by the Indian judiciary.

Several landmark cases have illuminated this aspect:

• • A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976): While primarily known for its stance on fundamental rights during an emergency, this case indirectly reinforced the idea that international law, unless explicitly incorporated, cannot override domestic law.
• • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): This is a watershed moment. In the absence of a specific law to address sexual harassment at the workplace, the Supreme Court explicitly referred to international conventions, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and laid down guidelines (the "Vishaka Guidelines") that would hold the field until specific legislation was enacted. This demonstrated the judiciary's proactive role in using international norms to fill legislative vacuums, especially in the context of fundamental rights, even if direct incorporation was absent. The Court stated that "international conventions and norms are to be read into domestic law in the absence of a specific law, provided they are not inconsistent with the domestic law."
• • People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004): The Supreme Court reiterated that international treaties, unless enacted into municipal law, cannot be enforced by the courts. However, it also acknowledged that courts could refer to international instruments for interpreting domestic law, especially when there is ambiguity.

The effective implementation of treaties, therefore, hinges on a multi-pronged approach:

• 1. Parliamentary Legislation: The most robust method is the enactment of specific laws under Article 253. Examples include the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (to implement human rights treaties) and various environmental protection acts that align with international environmental agreements.
• 2. Executive Actions: Even without specific legislation, the executive can take administrative steps to fulfill treaty obligations, provided they don't contravene existing domestic law.
• 3. Judicial Interpretation: As seen in Vishaka, the judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting existing domestic laws in light of international commitments, especially when fundamental rights are involved, thereby giving effect to treaty principles indirectly.

While the executive commits India to international agreements, it is Parliament that holds the key to their domestic enforceability. The judiciary, in turn, acts as a guardian, ensuring that India's international obligations are reflected in its legal landscape, even leveraging them creatively when legislative gaps exist, thereby balancing national sovereignty with global responsibility.