Boundary Disputes Indian Law

“It is argued that the 1974 and 1976 agreements established the international maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka. It was not the acquisition or transfer of territories belonging to India, since the territory in question had never been demarcated. Therefore, they did not require that a constitutional amendment be passed by Parliament. However, these agreements were submitted to Parliament and entered into force in accordance with the appropriate procedure for ratification and exchange of instruments of ratification between the two countries. For the Indian government, the issue of the maritime border between India and Sri Lanka and, therefore, the issue of sovereignty over the island of Kachachthivu is therefore a regulated issue. Sir Creek is a 96 km (60 mi) tidal estuary in the uninhabited wetlands of the Indus Delta on the Indo-Pakistan border. It flows into the Arabian Sea and separates the Indian state of Gujarat from Pakistan`s Sindh province. [39] The long-standing border dispute between India and Pakistan Sir Creek arises from the demarcation “of the mouth of Sir Creek at the summit of Sir Creek and from the summit of Sir Creek eastward to a point on the designated line at the western terminus.” [39] [40] From that point on, the limit is clearly defined as defined in the Tribunal`s 1968 award. [41] There are four sectors in the border dispute with China. That of the Sino-Afghan-Pakistani trijunction to the east towards the Karakoram Pass is the subject of the agreement of 3 March 1963, which defines the border in this region. It is based on Britain`s proposal to China in 1899 (the Macartney-MacDonald line), which China ignored. Furious, the viceroy, Lord Curzon, unilaterally changed it in favor of India in 1905, a deviation that was reaffirmed in the 1963 agreement.

Contrary to the myth spread by Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors, Pakistan has not ceded any territory to China. Instead, it acquired 750 square miles of administered territory. The Shaksgam Valley has not been abandoned, as a journalist who advised the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in 2001 enthusiastically claimed. According to the official map of India from 1950, the entire northern border, from the trijunction with Afghanistan to the trijunction with Nepal, was “indefinite”. Nehru had unilaterally changed it in 1954 to show a clear line. Thus, Aksai Chin became an “Indian territory”. He refused to discuss the change. The geographies, dimensions and dimensions of the property are one of the main causes of disputes. Robert Frost rightly wrote that good fences make good neighbors.

Land is one of the most revered goods in man`s life, so its length and width should not be ignored by the landowner. Ministry spokesman Arindam Bagchi said in a statement that “both sides have agreed to seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the border issue through consultations.” Wang Xu, vice dean of the law faculty at Renmin University of China, was quoted in China`s state-backed Global Times newspaper as saying that “the law will serve as a legal guide for China in dealing with all kinds of land border disputes, including the current specific territorial disputes at the Sino-Indian borders.” S.M. Seervai questioned the verdict. Since both judgments concluded that the dispute over the Rann of Kutch did not involve the surrender of Indian territory, the question did not arise as to whether the surrender of territory could only take place through a constitutional amendment, and Judge Shah did not correctly comment on the accuracy of Berubari`s statement. However, Hidayatullah C.J. said: “The precedents of this court are only clear on one point, namely that no surrender of Indian territory can take place without a constitutional amendment. Should a border dispute and its settlement by an arbitral tribunal be put on the same level? If these remarks consider it an established right that a transfer of territory requires a constitutional amendment, they are obiter , and for the reasons already mentioned (in paragraphs 6.12 and 6.13), they are clearly false. In 1990, however, the Berubari opinion was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Note that Judge Shah left an opening – when the territory was undoubtedly Indian. Under the Survey Act of 1865, the term “boundary dispute” refers to disputes between two neighbouring landowners about where a boundary line or boundary marks were or were established by surveyors. The dispute becomes more serious if that part of the disputed property is pledged by one of the parties. The Court`s remarks in this and the following case would be highly relevant to any legal challenge to an agreement with China. But is the tribunal free to go into the history of the dispute to determine whether it was a border settlement or a land transfer? If so, it would be limited to the falsified report of Indian officials (1960), which, as one of its authors admitted to this author, was intended to support India`s cause against China and was not an objective statement and analysis of historical evidence. Both sides usually have an impression of their border, but the dispute arises when there are unlawful attacks or construction beyond the “presumed” border is carried out. The true owner has the right to get rid of it, for which either the other party is supposed to eliminate the intervention, or the owner would be free to do so himself to the extent that it exceeds his limit. In letters dated 7 October 1982 between the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of Bangladesh and the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India, it was stated that, with reference to the previous agreement between the Government of Bangladesh and the Government of India on the demarcation of the land border between the two countries, signed on 16 May 1974, an agreement was signed between the two Governments on the permanent lease of the said 178-metre x 85-metre zone near “Teen Bigha” built by India to connect Dahagram to Mouza Punbari in Bangladesh. The registered agreement was as follows. Gajendragadkar J. was also wrong when he concluded that the agreement went beyond the Bagge award for Indo Pak disputes and did not reflect the settlement of a dispute because it “was concluded independently of the award and for reasons and considerations that the parties considered wise and expedient” (paragraph 22).

The decisive criterion is the existence and settlement of a dispute pending, not the conditions under which it is settled. It also doesn`t matter if it`s the exchange of enclaves. H.M. Seervai ruled that the Court`s opinion is “erroneous” (Constitutional Law of India, 4th edition, volume 1, page 309). The second problem is that there is a big difference in a dispute over the direction of a boundary and a land claim; between a border dispute and a land claim. Given the political will to reach an agreement, none of the legal issues constitute an obstacle. The border treaty will simply define a line. A constitutional amendment will remove all doubts. A national consensus is needed anyway. But legal issues must be tackled realistically and courageously.

Exercises at the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Law and Contracts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are not wasted. India faces territorial problems with some of its neighbors – the People`s Republic of China, Pakistan and Nepal. [1] It also has a border dispute with the Republic of China over Taiwan. [2] India dissolved its indefinite border with Bhutan, which involved several irregularities. India has also resolved its border disputes with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. There are two fundamental issues that need to be addressed. At his press conference in New Delhi on April 26, 1960, Zhou Enlai made six points. The first said, “There are disputes over the border between the two sides.” Nehru refrained from this principle from the beginning – there was no dispute over the territories of India. Although India has expressed concern about a new land border law passed by China, it said it expected Beijing not to take any action that could “unilaterally” change the situation in the countries` border areas.

A concurring verdict was rendered by Judge J.C. Shah: “I agree with the learned Chief Justice.” Referring to the evidence presented to the Court, he stated: “The orientation of the border under the award differs from the guidance advanced by the GOI before the Court in three important respects that have already been set out. After reviewing the maps, the court found that there were no historically recognized and well-established boundaries in the three areas at any time relevant to the proceedings.