C. SIVASANKARAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

C. SIVASANKARAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The petitioner, being an Ambassador-at-large, does not fall within the definition of "diplomatic agent" or any category covered by Article 1 of the Vienna Convention; communications from Seychelles and the MEA establish that his presence in India was not on official duty and the activities under investigation were commercial, bringing him within exceptions to immunity under Article 31; no successful pleading or proof was made that provisions of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 are ultra vires, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to diplomatic immunity and the writ petition must be dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner: C. Sivasankaran; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) No.302 of 2019 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment and Order by the Supreme Court (dismissal)
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Diplomatic Immunity, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Diplomatic Relations (vienna Convention) Act, 1972, Article 32 of the Constitution, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Constitutional Law International Law Criminal Law Diplomatic Law Diplomatic Immunity Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Diplomatic Relations (vienna Convention) Act, 1972 Article 32 of the Constitution +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. Sivasankaran

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) No.302 of 2019 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment and Order by the Supreme Court (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner, as Ambassador-at-large of Seychelles, enjoys diplomatic immunity from criminal proceedings in India
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner falls within the definition of "diplomatic agent" or any category in Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner is covered by Article 31 of the Vienna Convention or falls within its exceptions

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner, being an Ambassador-at-large, does not fall within the definition of "diplomatic agent" or any category covered by Article 1 of the Vienna Convention; communications from Seychelles and the MEA establish that his presence in India was not on official duty and the activities under investigation were commercial, bringing him within exceptions to immunity under Article 31; no successful pleading or proof was made that provisions of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 are ultra vires, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to diplomatic immunity and the writ petition must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • Writ petition dismissed
  • Interim relief(s), if any, stands vacated forthwith