LexREPUBLIC OF ITALY & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 466 A REPUBLIC OF ITALY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 135 of 2012 etc.) B APRIL 26, 2013 [ALTAMAS KABIR,CJI., ANIL R. DAVE AND \ VIKRAMAJIT SEN , JJ.] International Law - Incident of killing of two fishermen by c two marines of Italy - At the distance of 20.5 nautical miles from the Indian sea-coast, off the coastline of the State of Kera/a - Initiation of Criminal proceedings against the marines by the Sate of Kera/a - Writ Petition by Republic of Italy and SLP by the two marines questioning the jurisdiction of D Republic of India and the State of Kera/a to investigate and try the case - Supreme Court disposed of the Petitions holding that the State of Kera/a had no jurisdiction to investigate and try the case and Union of India had jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation and trial until it was proved E that Article 100 of UNCLOS, 1982 was applicable to the case - Direction was given to Union of India to set up Special Court to try the case and to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, /PC, Cr.P.C. and provisions of UNCLOS, 1982 - Matter mentioned before F supreme Court stating that Government of India received a communication from the Embassy of Italy which indicated that the Government of Italy had decided not to return the accused marines to India to stand trial - Court after giving certain directions enquired as to what steps were taken to constitute G the Special Court - The Court was informed that National Investigation Agency was appointed to take-over the investigation - Handing-over the investigation to the National Investigation Agency was opposed by the accused marines - Held: Supreme Court cannot be called upon to decide as to H 466 REPUBLIC OF ITALY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 467 ORS. which would be the agency to investigate - It is for the Central A Government to take decision in the matter - As the Central Government has duly taken steps in terms of the directions given in the main judgment, it is left to the Central Government to take further steps in the matter. B CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 135 of 2012. Under Article 32 of the Consitution of India. WITH c SLP (C) No. 20370 of 2012. Goolam E: Vahanvati, AG, Siddharth Luthra, Mukul Rohatgi, Suhail Dutt, Diljeet Titus, Viplav Sharma, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Ujjwal Sharma, Ninad Laud, Achint Singh Gyani, D Sulabh Sharma, S.A. Haseeb, Anoopam Prasad, B. Krishna Prasad, Rekha Pandey, S.S. Rawat, Supriya Juneja, Arjun Diwan, D.S. Mahra, Ramesh Babu M.R., Sushrut Jindal for the appearing parties. The order of the Court was delivered by E ORDER ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. These proceedings are ~:i offshoot of the judgment delivered by this Court on 18th January, 2013, disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No.135 of 2012 filed by F the Republic of Italy through its Ambassador in India and the two marines who had been arrested by the Kerala Police in connection with the killing of two Indian fishermen on board an Indian fishing vessel at a distance of 20.5 nautical miles from the Indian sea-coast off the coastline of the State of Kerala. G While the Special Leave Petition was filed by the two marines challenging the dismissal of their Writ Petition No.4542 of 2012 by the Kerala High Court rejecting their prayer for quashing of FIR No.2 of 2012 on the file of the Circle Inspector of Police, Neendakara, Kollam District, Kerala, as being without H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A jurisdiction, the Writ Petition (Civil) No.135 of 2012 was• also filed for much the same reliefs. Both the matters were, therefore, taken up together for hearing and were disposed of together on 18th January, 2013. 8 2. While disposing of the two matters, this Court held that the State of Kerala had no jurisdiction to investigate into the incident and that till such time it is proved that the provisions of Article 100 of UNCLOS, 1982, applied to the facts of this case, it is the Union of India which alone has the jurisdiction to C proceed with the investigation and trial of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the Writ Petition. We, accordingly, directed the Union of India, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, to set- up a special Court to try this case and to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, the Indian Pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.