Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The relief(s) claimed in this writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India is founded on the
assertion that the petitioner being an Ambassador-at-
large of Seychelles, enjoys diplomatic immunity and,
therefore, cannot be proceeded with before the Courts in
India much less by way of criminal action. This very
argument was canvassed by the petitioner in the writ
petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at
Madras, which after considering all the relevant aspects,
came to be rejected vide judgment and order dated
Digitally06.11.2019.signed by NEETU KHAJURIA
Having perused the said judgment, we are in agreement
with the view expressed therein. For, the petitioner
does not come within the sweep of definition of
“diplomatic agent” or for that matter any other category
of officials referred to in Article 1 of the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations Done at Vienna on
18.4.1961. This is precisely the opinion expressed by
the Madras High Court, which, we hereby affirm. That is
a question of fact as well as of law.
The affidavits filed by the respondents including the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), for resisting the
present writ petition have amongst other, brought on
record communications dated 16.08.2019 and 19.08.2019
issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of
India, which, in turn, refer to the communication
received by it from Seychelles Government clarifying that
the petitioner is Ambassador-at-large of that country and
has been issued a diplomatic passport, but his presence
in India was not on any official duty on behalf of that
Government. There is no reason to doubt the correctness
of the position so stated in the communications and
reiterated on affidavit filed before this Court dated
2.7.2020. Further, the affidavit also points out that
the petitioner is not covered by Article 31 of the
Convention, but falls in the exception contained therein,
as his activities being investigated, do not pertain to
any official functions but in respect of his commercial
activities as such.
As a matter of fact, the judgment of the Madras High
Court stares at the face of the petitioner, which has
remained unchallenged; and as aforesaid, we are in
agreement with the view expressed therein particularly
regarding the real status of the petitioner herein being
only an Ambassador-at-large. It must, therefore, follow
that the petitioner cannot be heard to invoke the
argument of diplomatic immunity and if that contention
fails, further reliefs claimed in the writ petition
regarding quashing of concerned criminal cases cannot be
taken forward.
Notably, the first relief claimed by the petitioner
in the writ petition is on an erroneous assumption that
the provisions of the Vienna Convention and of the
Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 are
ultra vires and, thus, urge upon this Court to read down
certain provisions such as Sections 2 and 3 of the Act.
The question of reading down any provision would arise
only if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the
impugned provision was otherwise ultra vires the
Constitution and the law. The latter has not been
pleaded nor established in the first place.
As aforesaid, on facts as well as in law, the
petitioner is not entitled to diplomatic immunity and as
a consequence thereof, the further reliefs claimed in the
writ petition cannot be taken forward. Hence, this writ
petition deserves to be dismissed and we so order.
We place on record our serious concern about the
manner in which the proceedings have been pursued by the
petitioner before this Court. In the first place, this
writ petition was filed without annexing copy of the
stated judgment of the Madras High Court though a
relevant and material document.
Further, in the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner
has annexed copy of the legal opinion given by a former
Judge of this Court. That cannot be countenanced at all.
It needs to be deprecated in strong terms and we do so.
At the same time, we place on record sincere apology
given by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner concerning filing of the opinion of the former
Judge of this Court by the Advocate-on-Record or the
counsel advising the petitioner, as the case may be.
Interim relief(s), if any, stands vacated forthwith.
NEW DELHI; December 07, 2021.
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 302/2019
C. SIVASANKARAN Petitioner(s)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
([FOR PHYSICAL HEARING] IA No. 23054/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 35071/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 170769/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 169692/2019 - STAY APPLICATION)
Date : 07-12-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Varun Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Arnav Narain, AOR
Mr. R.S. Lakshman, Adv.
Mr. Atharv Koppal, Adv.
Mr. Rakshit Ranjan, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned S.G.
Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
The writ petition is dismissed in terms of the signed
order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[Signed order is placed on the file]