Article 253 is a provision in the Constitution of India, 1950, which grants the Union Parliament the exclusive power to make laws for implementing international agreements. This provision is titled "Legislation for giving effect to international agreements".
The article originated from Draft Article 230, which was discussed in the Constituent Assembly on June 13 and October 14, 1949. It was created to ensure that India, as a sovereign nation, could fulfill its international commitments without being hindered by the internal federal division of legislative powers. The problem it solved was the potential for state legislatures to block the implementation of a treaty on a subject that falls under the State List.
Article 253 works by using a non-obstante clause—"Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter"—which gives it overriding authority over the normal distribution of legislative powers defined in Chapter II of Part XI, including Article 246. This mechanism allows Parliament to make any law for the whole or any part of India to implement any treaty, agreement, or convention with other countries, or any decision made at an international conference, association or other body. Crucially, this power extends even to subjects that are ordinarily reserved for the State List.
It connects directly to the distribution of legislative powers under Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule, acting as an exception to the federal structure. It also connects to Entries 13 and 14 of the Union List, which deal with participation in international conferences and implementing treaties. Significant laws enacted using this power include the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, following the Stockholm Conference, 1972, and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992. The Supreme Court, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), observed that while Parliament's power under Article 253 is wide, it must operate within the limits of the basic structure doctrine. The text of the article has not been recently amended, but its scope has been consistently upheld by the judiciary.