C. SIVASANKARAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 07-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
C. SIVASANKARAN
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 302 of 2019)
DECEMBER 07, 2021
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Diplomats/Ambassadors – Diplomatic immunity – Ambassador-
at-large – Relief(s) claimed in writ petition before High Court 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 – Argument rejected by High Court – Propriety –
Held: Proper – 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 – The real
status of the petitioner was 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 – Vienna Convention –
Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 – Constitution
of India, 1950 – Art. 32 and 226.
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.302 of 2019
(Under Article 32 Of The Constitution of India)
Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Varun Shankar, Arnav Narain, R. S.
Lakshman, Atharv Koppal, Rakshit Ranjan, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Mayank Pandey, Kanu Agrawal, Zoheb
Hussain, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Avadh Bihari
Kaushik, Advs. for the Respondents.
589
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 589
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
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 06.11.2019.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
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 t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.