Diplomats/Ambassadors – Diplomatic immunity – Ambassadorat-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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.