The ratification of the treaty was a royal prerogative exercised by the monarch on the advice of the government. Under a convention called the ponsonby rule, treaties were submitted to Parliament 21 days before ratification.  It was governed by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act of 2010. However, if the terms of the treaty imply powers exclusively applicable to states (national list), prior ratification of all applicable states, in accordance with Article 252 of the Indian Constitution, before ratification by Parliament. The latter is common in union collective agreements. The union authorizes one or more individuals to negotiate and sign an agreement with management. A collective agreement can only become legally binding if union members ratify the agreement. If the union members do not allow it, the agreement will be cancelled and negotiations will resume. Not all constitutional amendments in India must be ratified by the states.
Only constitutional amendments to amend the provisions of Section 368 of the Indian Constitution must be ratified by legislators in at least half of the states. These provisions deal with certain issues relating to the federal structure or the common interest of both the Union and the States, i.e. the election of the President (Articles 54 and 55); The extent of the executive power of the Union and the States (Articles 73 and 162); high courts for EU territories (Article 241); Eu justice and state high courts (Chapter IV of Part V and Chapter V of Part VI); the distribution of legislative powers between the EU and the States (Chapter I of Part XI and The Seventh Calendar); State representation in Parliament; and the amendment to the Constitution under section 368. Ratification is ensured by a resolution adopted by state legislators. There is no specific time frame for the ratification of a modified law by state legislators. However, decisions to ratify the proposed amendment must be adopted before the draft amendment is submitted for approval by the President.  If Parliament wants to codify the agreement reached by the executive and thus make it enforceable by the Indian courts, it can do so in accordance with Article 253 of the Constitution. According to the doctrine of ratification, the agent can do certain aerther acts, but the actual power of vest in principle only since he has the power to approve or disapprove the same thing. If the act is ratified, it will be dealt with in the manner in which the act was adopted with the approval of the awarding entity.
If this is not the case, the contract is finally valid. The fundamental difference between approval and ratification is that approval is given when the act to be ratified is still in force, but it is already completed when the aforementioned act is ratified. Once the final act is completed, only ratification can take place. With this doctrine of ratification, there is a doctrine of the relationship that says that something that is being done today is treated as if it had been done earlier. This means that the client and the third party did not have a contract after ratification, but from the moment the representative first entered into a contract with the third party. This doctrine does not arise when the treaty made by the agent says it is „subject to authorization or ratification.“ The third party may revoke its consent until ratification has taken place. That is why it has now put both parties on the same power in the concept of revocation, which is essential to justice.