Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed by the petitioner asserting diplomatic immunity as an Ambassador-at-large of Seychelles, seeking relief under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Madras High Court had previously rejected this claim, stating that the petitioner did not meet the definition of a 'diplomatic agent' under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the High Court's judgment, concurred with its findings, emphasizing that the petitioner’s activities were not related to official duties but rather to commercial activities. The Court noted that the Ministry of External Affairs had clarified that the petitioner’s presence in India was not for official purposes, thus he did not qualify for immunity under Article 31 of the Convention. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could not claim diplomatic immunity, and therefore, could not seek further reliefs regarding the quashing of criminal cases. The Court also expressed concern over the manner in which the proceedings were pursued, particularly the failure to attach the relevant High Court judgment and the inappropriate submission of a legal opinion from a former judge. The Court vacated any interim reliefs that had been granted. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar on December 7, 2021.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Diplomatic Immunity - Claim of Diplomatic Immunity - Article 32 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, claiming to be an Ambassador-at-large, was found not to qualify for diplomatic immunity as per the Vienna Convention, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. Held that the petitioner cannot invoke diplomatic immunity and further reliefs cannot be pursued (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Madras High Court's judgment that the petitioner did not qualify for diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention, and vacated any interim reliefs granted.
Law Points
- diplomatic immunity
- Article 32
- Vienna Convention
- ultra vires
- reading down provisions
