Summary
The Court rejected a Seychelles Ambassador-at-large’s claim to diplomatic immunity from Indian proceedings. His title and diplomatic passport did not establish that he was a diplomatic agent or another covered mission official, and official communications confirmed that his presence in India was not on Seychelles’ official duty. The claimed immunity therefore could not support quashing the criminal cases. The constitutional challenge lacked the necessary pleaded and established basis. The Court also deprecated concealment of the adverse High Court judgment and filing a former Supreme Court judge’s legal opinion.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner’s Ambassador-at-large designation and diplomatic passport established the status necessary for diplomatic immunity.
- Whether the requested reading down and consequential quashing relief had an established constitutional basis.
Provisions considered
- Article 1, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961The petitioner did not fall within the definition of diplomatic agent or another relevant category of mission official on the established facts. (¶ SCR 590-591)
Held
- The Court agreed with the unchallenged High Court determination that the petitioner lacked covered diplomatic status. Ministry communications reflecting Seychelles’ clarification established that, notwithstanding his designation and passport, his presence in India was not for official duty on that Government’s behalf. (¶ SCR 590-591)
- Because the asserted diplomatic immunity failed on the petitioner’s status and circumstances, the consequential claim to quash the criminal cases on that basis could not proceed. The Court did not determine the merits of those criminal allegations. (¶ SCR 591)
- Reading down could not be sought on an unsupported assumption of constitutional invalidity. The petitioner had neither pleaded nor established the necessary basis for treating the challenged provisions as ultra vires. (¶ SCR 591)
- The Court deprecated omission of the material adverse High Court judgment and annexing a former Supreme Court judge’s legal opinion in the rejoinder. It recorded senior counsel’s apology and vacated interim relief forthwith. (¶ SCR 591)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; claimed immunity and consequential quashing relief refused, and any interim relief vacated forthwith.