|
|
|
|
|
MARINES ROW R Sedhuraman Legal Correspondent
New Delhi, March 18 “We never expected the government of Italy to behave in this manner. He (ambassador) has lost our trust,” a three-member Bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir said while extending the travel restriction slapped on the envoy on March 14. The apex court had imposed the travel ban after being informed by Attorney General GE Vahanvati that the Italian Embassy here had sent a communication on March 11, stating that the two accused marines — Massimiliano Lattore and Salvatore Girone —“will not return to India” by March 22 as per the undertaking given to the SC as they could be tried only under international maritime laws and not under Indian laws. While passing the order, the SC had also issued notice to the ambassador and the Italian government seeking their explanations by March 18 in the light of Rome’s refusal to send back the marines for facing trial. The court had, on February 22, allowed the two marines to go to Italy for casting their votes in the February 24-25 Parliament election on an assurance given by the ambassador that he would take the responsibility for their return by March 22.
The Bench, which included Justices Anil R Dave and Ranjana Desai, then passed the order extending the travel ban till further orders and slating the next hearing for April 2. Appearing for Italy and the envoy, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi assured the court that the ambassador would not leave India in any way and as such there was no need to pass an order extending the restriction. Responding to this, the Bench retorted: “Do you want us to believe you? We never expected Italy to behave in this manner. He (envoy) has lost our trust.” At this, Rohatgi sought to invoke diplomatic immunity, citing the April 18, 1961 Vienna Convention to which India was a signatory. Unconvinced, the CJI was sarcastic: “Thank you very much. A person (envoy) who has come to the court as a petitioner, I don’t think, has any immunity. What do you think of our judicial system? Some people think we are naïve.” The marines were allowed to leave because the court trusted Italy, he explained. During the arguments, the SC also questioned the envoy’s intentions and asked Rohatagi whether his client would honour his commitment by March 22. Rohatagi said the envoy’s position was reflected in Italy’s two communications. “Nevertheless, I don’t know what will happen on 22nd,” he said. Italy has contended in its second note verbale that “any restriction to the freedom of movement of the ambassador of Italy to India including any limitation to his right of leaving the Indian territory, will be contrary to the international obligations of the receiving State to respect his person, freedom, dignity and function.” “The Embassy of Italy expects therefore that the Ministry of External Affairs will ensure full compliance with the privileges and immunities contemplated in the Convention, and provide reassurance that no Indian authority shall impose or implement restrictive measures on the personal freedom of His Excellency the Ambassador,” the communication said. Virtually rejecting this plea, the SC said in its order today that “all authorities in the country shall take appropriate steps” to prevent the envoy from leaving India. The marines, who were on board Italian ship “Enrica Lexie” while opening fire, have claimed that they had mistaken the fishermen for sea pirates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
As the case came up for hearing today, the AG informed the court that Italy had sent another note verbale on March 15, virtually questioning SC’s powers to prevent its envoy from leaving India as he enjoyed diplomatic immunity.