March 17, 2013
NEW DELHI: Italian Ambassador to India, Daniele Mancini, risks becoming the first-ever foreign diplomat to be hauled up for contempt of court because of his failure to keep the commitment to ensure the return of two Italian marines accused of killing Indian fishermen.
March 17, 2013
NEW DELHI: Italian Ambassador to India, Daniele Mancini, risks becoming the first-ever foreign diplomat to be hauled up for contempt of court because of his failure to keep the commitment to ensure the return of two Italian marines accused of killing Indian fishermen.
India’s Supreme Court has issued a notice to Daniele Mancini, the Italian ambassador, restraining him from leaving the country
Although it is difficult to hazard the course the proceedings may take in the Supreme Court on Monday when the bench resumes hearing on the Union government's affidavit accusing Italy of reneging on its commitment to send back the marines by March 22, legal experts feel that the apex court may show little leniency to Mancini.
The bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, A R Dave and Vikramjit Sen signaled its intent by issuing notice on government's affidavit to the note verbale from the Italian Embassy conveying the decision of their government not to send back the marines.
Experts also feel that court launching contempt of court proceedings is a strong possibility, considering that Mancini stripped himself of the diplomatic immunity he enjoys under the Vienna Convention by seeking redressal from Indian judiciary. Article 32 of the Convention makes it clear that a diplomat ceases to be eligible for diplomatic immunity from criminal and civil jurisdiction of the host country after he initiates a proceeding in the court of law.
Official sources said that the court is not likely to countenance an argument that Mancini not bound by the same commitment he gave to the court to seek permission for the marines to be sent to Italy for a month "under the care and supervision of the Italian government".
There are also strong indications to suggest that Indian government will not flinch from seeking the application of any penalty in full if Mancini is adjudged to be guilty of contempt of court. Sources indicated that government is under pressure from Congress leadership to rebut the Opposition's allegation that the marines were allowed to go scot-free, thanks to diplomatic collusion.
The charge by BJP and others that the "escape" was scripted with the government playing along has stung Congress leadership, with the government having to explain the politically embarrassing fiasco. Sources said that leadership has also asked as to how the government could not anticipate the trick Rome played on New Delhi to get the marines.
In any case, Article 144 of the Constitution mandates the government to carry out the orders of Supreme Court.
In fact, the estimate is that the government will not choose the easy option of expelling Mancini because that may not be enough to blunt the insinuation that the government was complicit or naive. On the other hand, punishment for contempt of court, which plays out in full public glare and for long, will be politically more expedient.
Mancini filed an affidavit giving personal undertaking to the SC assuring that he would take full responsibility of the marines travel, stay and return to India within four weeks of February 22, when the court permitted them to travel to Italy for casting vote in their national elections.
Courtesy: TOI
