Supreme Court Rejects Aircel Founder Sivasankaran's Claims Of Diplomatic Immunity

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the plea of diplomatic immunity raised by Aircel founder C Sivasankaran to resist the prosecution in money laundering cases in India.

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar dismissed the writ petition filed in 2019 by Sivasankaran, who claimed that he was an Ambassador of the Republic of Seychelles.

The bench noted that the Madras High Court had rejected Sivasankaran's plea for diplomatic immunity in 2019 and that he had filed the writ petition in the Supreme Court without challenging the High Court judgment.

Further, the bench also took note of a communication from the Seychelles Government to the Ministry of External Affairs in which it was stated that while Sivasankaran was the ambassador-at-large of Seychelles and had a diplomatic passport, his presence in India had no diplomatic purpose.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, who appeared for Sivasankaran, submitted that the petitioner was a serving Ambassador of the Republic of Seychelles and he has immunity under the Vienna Convention from criminal proceedings in India.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, relied on the Seychelles Government's communication to submit that Sivasankaran's presence in India was not on official duty.

Taking note of these factors, the bench held that Sivasankaran's claims for diplomatic immunity cannot be accepted. Further, the bench observed that the Madras High Court's judgment "stares at the petitioner". It also expressed its agreement with the views of the Madras High Court.

Further, the bench took exception to the petitioner annexing the legal opinion of a former judge of the Supreme Court in his rejoinder, to support his arguments. Following this, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh apologized for the conduct of the Advocate on Record and the advising counsel.

"In the Rejoinder affidavit filed the Petitioner has annexed a copy of the legal opinion of a former judge of this court, which cannot be countenanced at all and needs to be deprecated in strong terms. We do so.

We place on record sincere apologies given by the Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner with regard to the aforesaid error committed by the AOR or the advising counsel for the Petitioner", the bench noted in the order.

Sivasankaran had approached the Madras High Court challenging the Look Out Circular issued against him in connection with a Rs 600 Crores bank loan scam involving IDBI bank.

The CBI and the Enforcement Directorate registered cases against him. The High Court noted that he was not the Ambassador of the Seychelles Republic in India and hence that immunity under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention would not apply to him in view of the definition of the term 'diplomatic agent' under the convention.

"Article 31 of the Convention will not apply even in respect of a diplomatic agent in the receiving State if he were to indulge in any professional or commercial activity outside his official functions. It is no part of the official functions of the petitioner to take loans from the IDBI Bank and then engage in money laundering," the High Court had held.

Case Title : C Sivasankaran versus Union of India,  W.P.(Crl.) No. 302/2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order