Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Having regard to the elaborate arguments addressed to us; the nature of the controversy and the close examination we have bestowed, it will be proper if we briefly mention our reasons for rejecting this appeal.

3. The learned counsel's repeated emphasis was on the opinion expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in In re Berubari's case, AIR 1960 SC 845 (para 34). According to him conquest of a territory amounted to automatic acquisition and that Part of Sind which India conquered in 1971 became its integral part. He referred to us to Kautilya and Manu in support of the proposition. His further submission was that the running of the civil administration in the conquered territory by Indian officers and meeting the expenditure out of country's funds besides the reported unfurling of the national flag by the Commissioner Shri K. D. Ujjwal are acts which unmistakably evidence the intention of annexing of the territory by the Government. In any event the intention could be ascertained by notice to the Government, if any doubt was entertained.

4. Article 1(3)(c) of the Constitution reads: "such other territory as may be acquired". The true meaning of the word "acquired" or "acquisition" has to be first ascertained. Kautilya was a profound scholar of political science and statecraft and Manu was a great law giver but their concept of conquest would be of little or no assistance in interpreting our Constitution today when the nations of the world are knit under United Nations Organization and concepts of international law have acquired new dimensions. The word 'acquisition' their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in N. Masthan Sahib v. The Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry, AIR 1963 SC 553 (para 10) has to be understood with reference to Public International Law.

5. The observations stressed by the learned counsel In re Berubari, AIR 1960 SC 845 read:

"The acquisition of foreign territory by India in exercise of its inherent right as a sovereign State automatically makes the said territory a part of the territory of India. After such territory is thus acquired and factually made a Part of the territory of India the process of law may assimilate it either under Article 2 or under Article 3(a) or (b)."

6. In our opinion the above passage does not imply that mere physical possession of territory by force of arms amounts to automatic acquisition. What It means is that once India as a sovereign State in exercise of its inherent right acquires (as distinguished from mere seizure) a foreign territory it automatically becomes a part of the territory of India. The word "acquisition" has now an ^accepted connotation in Public International Law. Conquest is merely one of the modes of acquisition. L. Oppenheim in his classic of International Law (Peace) observes in para 236 (at page 566, Eighth Edition):---

"236. Conquest is the taking possession of enemy territory through military force in time of war. Conquest alone does not ipso facto make the conquering State the sovereign of the conquered territory, although such territory comes through conquest for the time under the sway of the conqueror. Conquest is only a mode of acquisition if the conqueror, after having firmly established the conquest. formally annexes the territory ....."

During the 17th and 18th century seizure of territory in war formed the base of title. It was with the advent of the French Revolution that a distinction came to be drawn between 'conquest' and 'annexation'. (See D. P. O'Connell's International Law Vol. I, 1965 Edition, page 498). Bellingerent occupation of foreign territory by itself is no longer conquest The concept includes formal annexation.