Abrogation of Diplomatic Immunity by National Courts in the Enrica Lexie Case and its Effects on International Law

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze the stance of the Indian Supreme Court in relation to the established principles of International Law relating to diplomatic immunity in the Erica Lexie case. In this case, two Italian marines on detachment aboard a merchant ship killed 2 fishermen from India and were tried for murder. During the pendency of the case, they filed an application to be allowed to go home for one month and their application was supported by an affidavit from the Italian Ambassador. The Supreme Court allowed their application. Near the expiry of the time period so allowed, Italy refused to send them back to India. In response, The Supreme Court placed travel restrictions on the Ambassador holding that he had breached the affidavit and was liable for contempt of court. They held that the submission of the affidavit meant that the ambassador had waived his immunity and could be held in contempt. This is contrary to the principles established in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and practice of other states on the matter, but a finding in this regard can be said to have negatively influenced this concept in International Law. The principles of Diplomatic Immunity are firmly established and Indian Courts, holding contrary to them gives rise to a myriad of problems in an already sensitive concept that is primarily based on the principle of reciprocity.