Information was also sought as to whether the Government intetided to acaede to enabling the Committee to receive and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, consider communications from individuals. It was further asked whether the Goverment was giving any thought to withdrawing some of its reservations to the Covenant, which mounted to restrictions with respect to a number of articles and the possibility of whole sections of the Covenant not being Clarification was requested, in particular, on India’s reservation applied. to article 1 of the Covenant. 263. In his reply, the representative of the State party explained that in hisl country the rules of international law were incorporated into national law and considered to he part of it unless they were in conflict with an Act of Article 51 of the Constitution, which provided that the State Parliament. should endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organieed peoples with one another, was a directive principle of State policy, providing guidance for the executive and the legislature, but was not enforceeble in the courts. No rights existed in India other than those that were guaranteed in the Constitution and, consequently, a citizen could claim that his rights, had been violated only on the basis of a particular law, not on the basis of a provision of the However, when a court examined challenges on the basis of a right Covenant. guaranteed by the Constitution but restricted or denied by an ambiguous law, the court could overrule the law and interpret the right in queStion as including the full guarantees under the Covenant. The Supreme Court of India had observed that, in the event of doubt, the national rule was to be interpreted in accordance with the international obligations of the State. Since the rights included in the Covenant wero reflected in the Indian Constitution and other laws, the question of contradictions between Indian legislation and other laws was purely hypothetical. Referring to remedies available to individuals, he emphasiaed that any citieen was entitled to appeal directly to the Supreme court in order to In fact, proceedings could be initiated on enforce his fundamental rights, the basis of an anonymous telephone call or a poetcard to the Supreme Court. Where a large group of persons could not afford to bring an action, any person could file a litigation on their behalf under the system of public interest litigation and, under article 141 of the Constitution, any decision on such matter became binding on all courts in the nation. 264. 265. With regard to the dissemination of information on the rights recognised in the Covenant, the representative of the State party explained that citiesne of India were well acquainted with the basic human rights and fundemental freedoms embodied in it as a result of the efforts of the Government and its information agencies, and of radio and television progrsmmes in all the country’s languages. The Covenant, and other international instruments on human righte, had been translated into several Indian languages, and human rights, in the broadest sense, formed part of the curriculum and syllabus for children in school. 266. Replying to questions on the scope of India’s reservation to article 1 of the Covenant, the representative stressed that territorial integrity and sovereignty had to be the basis of the right to self-determination. The term “self-determination” did not apply to citizens within Indian territory, but rather only to those living outside the territory of India under foreign domination. -67-