Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by C. Sivasankaran, who claimed to be an Ambassador-at-large of Seychelles, seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him on the ground of diplomatic immunity. The petitioner had earlier approached the Madras High Court with the same argument, which was rejected on 06.11.2019. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view, noting that the petitioner does not qualify as a 'diplomatic agent' under Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. The Ministry of External Affairs communications dated 16.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 clarified that although the petitioner holds a diplomatic passport, his presence in India was not on official duty, and his activities under investigation were commercial in nature, falling within the exception to immunity under Article 31 of the Convention. The Court also rejected the petitioner's challenge to the vires of Sections 2 and 3 of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, as no constitutional infirmity was demonstrated. Additionally, the Court deprecated the filing of a legal opinion by a former Supreme Court judge in the rejoinder affidavit, accepting the apology of the senior counsel. The writ petition was dismissed, and interim reliefs were vacated.
Headnote
A) Diplomatic Immunity - Ambassador-at-large - Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 1 - The petitioner, an Ambassador-at-large of Seychelles, does not fall within the definition of 'diplomatic agent' under Article 1 of the Convention, as his presence in India was not on official duty and his activities were commercial in nature. The Supreme Court affirmed the Madras High Court's view that he is not entitled to diplomatic immunity. (Paras 1-3) B) Diplomatic Immunity - Exception for Commercial Activities - Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 31 - The petitioner's activities under investigation pertain to commercial activities, not official functions, falling within the exception to diplomatic immunity under Article 31. The Ministry of External Affairs communications confirmed that his presence was not on official duty. (Paras 2-3) C) Constitutional Law - Ultra Vires and Reading Down - Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, Sections 2 and 3 - The petitioner's claim that Sections 2 and 3 of the Act are ultra vires was rejected as he failed to demonstrate any constitutional infirmity. The question of reading down arises only if the provision is ultra vires, which was not established. (Paras 3-4) D) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of Process - Filing of Former Judge's Opinion - The Supreme Court deprecated the petitioner's filing of a legal opinion by a former Judge of this Court in the rejoinder affidavit, terming it unacceptable. The Court accepted the apology of the senior counsel but expressed serious concern over the conduct. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, as Ambassador-at-large of Seychelles, is entitled to diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 and the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, and whether the provisions of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Madras High Court's judgment. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to diplomatic immunity, and the challenge to the vires of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 fails. Interim reliefs were vacated. The Court deprecated the filing of a former judge's legal opinion but accepted the apology.
Law Points
- Diplomatic immunity
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
- 1961
- Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act
- 1972
- Ambassador-at-large
- Ultra vires
- Reading down
