9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Family Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” has to be conducted only at the level of the Federal or Central Government and cannot be the subject matter of a proceeding initiated by a Provincial/State Government. Issue of sovereignty - Held that:- sovereignty is not “given”, but it is only asserted. No doubt, under the Maritime Zones Act, the Parliament expressly asserted sovereignty of this country over the territorial waters but, simultaneously, asserted its authority to determine / alter the limit of the territorial waters. At any rate, the issue is not whether India can and, in fact, has asserted its sovereignty over areas beyond the territorial waters. The issue in the instant case is the authority of the Parliament to extend the laws beyond its territorial waters and the jurisdiction of this Court to examine the legality of such exercise. Even on the facts of Aban Loyd case, it can be noticed that the operation of the Customs Act was extended beyond the territorial waters of India and this Court found it clearly permissible although on the author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Galle in Sri Lanka. The said Military Deployment Order was sent by the Italian Navy General Staff to the concerned Military Attaches in New Delhi, India and Muscat, Oman. A change in the disembarkation plans, whereby the planned port of disembarkation was shifted from Muscat to Djibouti, was also intimated to the concerned Attaches. 2. While the aforesaid vessel, with the Military Protection Detachment on board, was heading for Djibouti on 15th February, 2012, it came across an Indian fishing vessel, St. Antony, which it allegedly mistook to be a pirate vessel, at a distance of about 20.5 nautical miles from the Indian sea coast off the State of Kerala, and on account of firing from the Italian vessel, two persons in the Indian fishing vessel were killed. After the said incident, the Italian vessel continued on its scheduled course to Djibouti. When the vessel had proceeded about 38 nautical miles on the High Seas towards Djibouti, it received a telephone message, as well as an e- mail, from the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre, Mumbai, asking it to return to Cochin Port to assist with the enquiry into the incident. Responding to the message, the M.V. Enrica Lexie altere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Italian Penal Code is imprisonment of at least 21 years. 7. After entering appearance in the writ petition, the Union of India and its Investigating Agency filed joint statements therein on 28th February, 2012, on behalf of the Union of India and the Coast Guard, with the Kerala High Court, along with the Boarding Officers Report dated 16th- 17th February, 2012, as an annexure. On 5th March, 2012, the Consul General filed a further affidavit on behalf of the Republic of Italy, annexing additional documents in support of its claim that the accused had acted in an official capacity. In the affidavit, the Consul General reasserted that Italy had exclusive jurisdiction over the writ petitioners and invoked sovereign and functional immunity. 8. The Kerala High Court heard the matter and directed the Petitioners to file their additional written submissions, which were duly filed on 2nd April, 2012, whereupon the High Court reserved its judgment. However, in the meantime, since the judgment in the Writ Petition was not forthcoming, the Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on 19th April, 2012, inter alia, for the following reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Writ Petition have been heard together. 13. Simply stated, the case of the Petitioners is, that the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, had been discharging their duties as members of the Italian Armed Forces, in accordance with the principles of Public International Law and an Italian National Law requiring the presence of armed personnel on board commercial vessels to protect them from attacks of piracy. It is also the Petitioners' case that the determination of international disputes and responsibilities as well as proceedings connected therewith, must necessarily be between the Sovereign Governments of the two countries and not constituent elements of a Federal Structure. In other words, in cases of international disputes, the State units/governments within a federal structure, could not be regarded as entities entitled to maintain or participate in proceedings relating to the sovereign acts of one nation against another, nor could such status be conferred upon them by the Federal/Central Government. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that the proceedings, if any, in such cases, could only be initiated by the Union at its discretion. Consequently, the arrest and cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istence of such division of zones as a direct consequence of rights guaranteed under Public International Law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, hereinafter referred to as, the UNCLOS . 17. Mr. Salve submitted that the extent of jurisdiction of a State beyond its coastline is provided in Section 3 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 indicates that the limit of the Territorial Waters is the line every point of which is at a distance of twelve nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline. Section 5 of the aforesaid Act provides that the Contiguous Zone of India is an area beyond and adjacent to the Territorial Waters and the limit of the Contiguous Zone is the line every point of which is at a distance of twenty-four nautical miles from the nearest point of the baseline referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 3. Section 7 of the Act defines Exclusive Economic Zone as an area beyond and adjacent to the Territorial Waters, and the limit of such zone is two hundred nautical miles from the baseline referred to in sub- section (2) of Section 3. In respect of each of the three above-mentioned zones, the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CLOS, is also bound by the provisions thereof. Submitting that since the provisions of the 1976 Act and also UNCLOS recognise the primacy of Flag State jurisdiction, the Petitioner No.1 i.e. the Republic of Italy, has the preemptive right to try the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under its local laws. 21. Mr. Salve submitted that provisions, similar to those in the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, relating to the extent of territorial waters and internal waters and the right of innocent passage , are provided in Articles 8, 17 and 18 of the Convention. Mr. Salve submitted that Article 17 sets down in clear terms that subject to the Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea. Innocent passage has been defined in Article 18 to mean navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of : (a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or part facility outside internal waters; or (b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or part facility. 22. The said definition has been qualified to indicate that such passage would be continuous and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond 24 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Accordingly, since the incident occurred outside the territorial waters, the State of Kerala exceeded its jurisdiction and authority in acting on the basis of the FIR lodged against the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at Neendakara, Kollam, and in keeping them in continued detention. 25. Referring to Part V of the Convention, which deals with Exclusive Economic Zones, Mr. Salve pointed out that Article 56 under the said Part indicates the rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the Exclusive Economic Zone so as to include the State's sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds. The said Article also indicates that the State has jurisdiction in regard to : (i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national. 27. Lastly, Mr. Salve referred to Article 100, which may be of relevance to the facts of this case, as it requires all States to cooperate to the fullest extent in the repression of piracy on the High Seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State. 28. Mr. Salve submitted that the publication of a Notification by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 27th August, 1981, under Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, extending the application of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the Exclusive Economic Zone, created various difficulties, since the said Notification was a departure from the provisions of Part V of UNCLOS which provides that a coastal State enjoys only sovereign rights and not sovereignty over the Exclusive Economic Zone. 29. Referring to the interim report of the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, in respect of the incident, Mr. Salve pointed out that the fishing boat, MFB St. Antony, about 12 meters long, was owned by one Mr. Freidy, who was also working as the Sarang of the boat, which is registered at Colachel, Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 11 SCC 439], Mr. Salve submitted that in the said decision, this Court had held that from a reading of Sections 6 and 7 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, it is clear that India has been given only certain limited sovereign rights in respect of its Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone, which cannot be equated to extending the sovereignty of India over its Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone, as in the case of Territorial Waters. However, Sections 6(6) and 7(7) of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, empower the Central Government, by notification, to extend the enactment in force in India, with such restrictions and modifications which it thinks fit, to its Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone and also provides that an enactment so extended shall have effect as if the Continental Shelf or the Exclusive Economic Zone, to which the Act has been extended, is a part of the territory of India. Sections 6(6) and 7(7) create a fiction by which the Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone are deemed to be a part of India for the purposes of such enactments which are extended to those areas by the Central Government by issuing a notification. 31. Mr. Salve s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Tariff Act had been extended to areas declared as designated areas under the said Act. 33. Mr. Salve contended that the stand of the Union of India has been that the provisions of UNCLOS cannot be applied in the facts of the case, since the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, which is a domestic Act, is a departure from UNCLOS, and Article 27 of UNCLOS was not a part of the Indian domestic law. Further, in anticipation of the submissions on behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Salve urged that the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Case of S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.) [(1927) P.C.I.J.] which involved claims between France and Turkey continued to be good law, save and except to the extent it had been overridden, but only in relation to collisions under Article 97 of the UNCLOS. 34. Mr. Salve submitted that the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the Union of India were misconceived, because they were not taken earlier and were not to be found in the affidavit affirmed by the Union of India. Mr. Salve submitted that the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, far from being a departure, is in complete conformity with the principles of UNCLOS. The Act is limited to spell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fic legal regime established in Part V of UNCLOS. 38. As far as the Lotus decision is concerned, Mr. Salve contended that such decision had been rendered in the facts involving the collision of a French vessel with a Turkish vessel, which ultimately led to the 1952 Geneva Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to penal jurisdiction in matters of collisions, which overruled the application of the principles of concurrent jurisdiction over marine collisions. Mr. Salve urged that a reading of Articles 91, 92, 94 and 97 of UNCLOS clearly establishes that any principle of concurrent jurisdiction that may have been recognised as a principle of Public International Law stands displaced by the express provisions of UNCLOS. Learned counsel pointed out that it was not in dispute that the St. Antony, the Indian vessel involved in the incident, was registered under the Tamil Nadu Fishing laws and not under the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, which would allow it to travel beyond the territorial waters of the respective State of the Indian Union, where the vessel was registered. 39. Mr. Salve lastly contended that the stand of the Union of India that since no specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India signed the Convention in 1982 and ratified the same on 29th June, 1995. Referring to Sections 2 and 4 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Salve urged that the same would stand excluded in their operation to the domestic Courts on the ground of sovereign immunity. 43. Mr. Salve lastly urged that in order to understand the presence of the Italian marines on board the M.V. Enrica Lexie, it would be necessary to refer to the Protocol Agreement entered into between the Ministry of Defence Naval Staff and Italian Shipowners' Confederation (Confitarma) on 11th October, 2011. Mr. Salve pointed out that the said Agreement was entered into pursuant to various legislative and presidential decrees which were issued on the premise that piracy and armed plundering were serious threats to safety in navigation for crew and carried merchandise, with significant after-effects on freights and marine insurance, the commercial costs of which may affect the national community. Accordingly, it was decided to sign the Protocol Agreement, in order that the parties may look for and find all or any measure suitable to facilitate that the embar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke to recall that according to principles of customary international law, recognized by several decisions of International Courts. State organs enjoy jurisdictional immunity for acts committed in the exercise of their official functions. The Italian Navy Military Department that operated in international waters on board of the ship Enrica Lexie must be considered as an organ of the Italian State. Their conduct has been carried out in the fulfillment of their official duties in accordance with national regulations (Italian Act nr.107/2011), directives, instructions and orders, as well as the pertinent rules on piracy contained in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and in the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions on the Piracy off the Horn of Africa. The Embassy of Italy welcomes the steps taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kollam in order to protect the life and honour of the Italian Military Navy Personnel currently held in judicial custody on remand. The Embassy of Italy also welcomes the cooperative approach on the issue of the examination of the weapons taken by the Magistrate. The Embassy of Italy nevertheless reasserts the Italian exclusive jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained in UNCLOS and the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions on Piracy off the Horn of Africa. 46. Mr. Salve submitted that in the special facts of the case, the Petitioners were entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition and the Special Leave Petition. 47. Mr. Gourab Banerji, Additional Solicitor General, who appeared for the Union of India, focussed his submissions on two issues raised by the Petitioners, namely, :- (i) Whether Indian Courts have territorial jurisdiction to try Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? (ii) If so, whether the Writ Petitioners are entitled to claim sovereign immunity? 48. Mr. Banerji submitted that stripped of all embellishments, the bare facts of the incident reveal that on 15th February, 2012, FIR No.2 of 2012 was registered with the Coastal Police Station, Neendakara, Kollam, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. alleging that a fishing vessel, St. Antony , was fired at by persons on board a passing ship, as a result of which, out of the 11 fishermen on board, two were killed instantaneously. It was alleged that the ship in question was M.V. Enrica Lexie. The detaile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Zone would also be deemed to be a part of the territory of India, inasmuch as, the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure had been extended to the Contiguous Zone/Exclusive Economic Zone by virtue of the Notification dated 27th August, 1981, issued under Section 7(7) of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976. Mr. Banerji submitted that according to the Union of India, the domestic law is not inconsistent with the International law and in fact even as a matter of international law, the Indian Courts have jurisdiction to try the present offence. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that in order to determine the issue of territorial jurisdiction, it would be necessary to conjointly read the provisions of Section 2 I.P.C., the Maritime Zones Act, 1976 and the 27th August, 1981 Notification and all attempts had to be made to harmonise the said provisions with the UNCLOS. However, if a conflict was inevitable, the domestic laws must prevail over the International Conventions and Agreements. 53. In this regard, Mr. Banerji first referred to the provisions of Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with punishment of offences committed within India. In this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneral submitted that the case of the Union of India rests on two alternative planks. According to one interpretation, the bare reading of Section 7(7) and the Notification suggests that once the I.P.C. has been extended to the Exclusive Economic Zone, which includes the Contiguous Zone, the Indian Courts have territorial jurisdiction to try offences committed within the Contiguous Zone. Another plank of the case of the Union of India, involves a contextual interpretation of Section 7(7) and the 1981 Notification. Mr. Banerji submitted that presuming that the Notification provides for the extension of Indian law relating to only those matters specified in Section 7(4) of the Act, the Indian Courts would also have territorial jurisdiction in respect of the present case. Mr. Banerji submitted that notwithstanding the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners that such an interpretation would be contrary to the provisions of UNCLOS, particularly, Article 56 thereof, the same failed to notice Article 59 which permits States to assert rights or jurisdiction beyond those specifically provided in the Convention. Alternatively, even in terms of the contextual interpretation of Section 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contextual interpretation thereof, the Republic of India has jurisdiction to try the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in its domestic courts. Even the 1981 Notification could be read down and related to Section 5 of the 1976 Act. Referring to the decision of this court in Hukumchand Mills Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1964 SC 1329] and N. Mani Vs. Sangeetha Theatre Ors. [(2004) 12 SCC 278], Mr. Banerji urged that if the executive authority had the requisite power under the law, and if the action taken by the executive could be justified under some other power, mere reference to a wrong provision of law would not vitiate the exercise of power by the executive, so long as the said power exists. 59. Regarding the applicability of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code to the facts of the case, Mr. Banerji urged that the provisions of the I.P.C. would, in any event, apply to any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India or to any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be. Mr. Banerji submitted that the Explanation to the Section makes it clear that the word offence includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had yet to arrive. Mr. Banerji contended that, on the other hand, what was more important were the provisions of the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981, wherein in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act it has been indicated that the Act was in the nature of umbrella legislation and it was envisaged that separate legislation for dealing in greater detail with the regulation, exploration and exploitation of particular resources in the country's Maritime Zones and to prevent poaching activities of foreign fishing vessel to protect the fishermen who were citizens of India, should be undertaken in due course. In this context, Mr. Banerji further urged that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act dealing with the registration of Indian ships, do not include fishing vessels, which are treated as an entirely distinct and separate category in Chapter XV-A of the said Act. 62. Mr. Banerji urged that the right of passage through territorial waters is not the subject matter of dispute involved in the facts of this case. On the other hand, Article 56 of UNCLOS, which has been relied upon by the Petitioners indicate that the rights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such person except before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national. Mr. Banerji urged that the expression incident of navigation used in Article 97, did not contemplate a situation where a homicide takes place and, accordingly, the provisions of Article 97 of the UNCLOS would not have any application to the facts of the present case. 65. On Article 11 of the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Seas, 1958, Mr. Banerji submitted that the killing of an Indian national on board an Indian vessel could not be said to be an incident of navigation, as understood under the said Article which deals mainly with collision on the high seas. Referring to Oppenheim on International Law [9th Edn. Vol.1], Mr. Banerji submitted that the phrase accident of navigation has been used synonymously with incident of navigation . Consequently, the meaning of the expression accident of navigation provided in the dictionary defines the same to mean mishaps that are peculiar to travel by sea or to normal navigation; accidents caused at sea by the action of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 I.P.C. begins with the words - every person which makes all offenders, irrespective of nationality, punishable under the Code and not otherwise, for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he is found to be guilty within India. Reference was made by Mr. Banerji to the decision of this Court in Mobarik Ali Ahmad Vs. State of Bombay [AIR 1957 SC 857], wherein this Court had held that the exercise of criminal jurisdiction depends on the location of the offence, and not on the nationality of the alleged offender or his corporeal presence in India. This Court pointed out that the plain meaning of the phrase every person is that it embraces all persons without limitation and irrespective of nationality, allegiance, rank, status, caste, colour or creed, except such as may be specially exempted from criminal proceedings or punishment by virtue of specific provisions of the Constitution or any statutory provisions or some well-recognised principle of international law, such as foreign sovereigns, ambassadors, diplomatic agents and so forth, accepted in the municipal law. 68. Going a step further, Mr. Banerji also referred to the United Nations Privileges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Petitioners' case that the said Convention reflects the Customary International Law, cannot be accepted. 70. Also referring to the decision in Pinochet's case No.3 [(2000) 1 AC 147], Mr. Banerji submitted that the said case concerned the immunity of a former Head of State from the criminal jurisdiction of another State, not the immunity of the State itself in proceedings designed to establish its liability to damages. The learned ASG submitted that even though the Republic of Italy may claim sovereign immunity when sued in an Indian Court for damages for the unlawful acts of its citizens, it was clear that even if it is assumed that the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were acting under orders of the Italian Navy, there is no basis for any claim of immunity from criminal jurisdiction in the face of Section 2 I.P.C. Mr. Banerji submitted that the action of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 was not acta jure imperii but acta res gestionis and hence the scope of the various Italian laws would have to be established by way of evidence. Mr. Banerji submitted that since the claim of functional immunity from criminal jurisdiction was not maintainable, the Special Leave Petition was liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enact laws to give effect to the provisions of a Treaty, Agreement or Convention, to which India is a party, the provisions of UNCLOS have not as yet been made part of the Municipal Law of India. Mr. Giri urged that several International Conventions have been ratified by the Indian Republic to give effect to provisions of Conventions to which India is a signatory, such as the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, to give effect to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as also the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, to give effect to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention. In the instant case, however, the Indian Parliament has not enacted any law to give effect to the provisions of UNCLOS 1982. 75. Mr. Giri, however, conceded that International Conventions could not be ignored while enforcing the municipal law dealing with the same subject matter and in any given case, attempts were required to be made to harmonise the provisions of the international law with the municipal law. However, in the case of conflict between the two, it is the municipal law which would prevail. In this regard, reference was made to the decision of this Court in what is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 297 of the Constitution, is a law which applies to the Territorial Waters, Contiguous Zone, Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone over the seas in which the incident had taken place. If, therefore, the provisions of the Convention were to be accepted as having conferred jurisdiction on the Indian judiciary, such a situation would be contrary to the provisions of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, which contemplates the extension of domestic penal laws to the Exclusive Economic Zone in such a manner that once extended, it would, for all applicable purposes, include such zone to be a part of the territory of India. Mr. Giri submitted that adoption or implementation of the provisions of UNCLOS would not only affect the rights of the citizens of this country, but also give rise to a legal regime, which would be inconsistent with the working of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, read with the notifications issued thereunder. Consequently, neither the Indian Penal Code nor the Code of Criminal Procedure or the notifications issued, making them applicable to the Exclusive Economic Zone, as if they were part of the territory of India, could be kept inoperative by UNCLOS, 1982. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of application of the Indian Penal Code and the Cr.P.C. by virtue of Section 7(7) of the Maritime Zones Act read with Notification S.O.671(E) dated 27th August, 1981. Mr. Giri submitted that the case made out in the Special Leave Petition did not merit any interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, nor was any interference called for in the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners in this Court. Learned counsel submitted that both the petitions were liable to be dismissed with appropriate cost. 82. Two issues, both relating to jurisdiction, fall for determination in this case. While the first issue concerns the jurisdiction of the Kerala State Police to investigate the incident of shooting of the two Indian fishermen on board their fishing vessel, the second issue, which is wider in its import, in view of the Public International Law, involves the question as to whether the Courts of the Republic of Italy or the Indian Courts have jurisdiction to try the accused. 83. We propose to deal with the jurisdiction of the Kerala State Police to investigate the matter before dealing with the second and larger issue, the decision whereof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86. Furthermore, in this case, one has to take into account another angle which is an adjunct of Public International Law, since the two accused in the case are marines belonging to the Royal Italian Navy, who had been deputed on M.V. Enrica Lexie, purportedly in pursuance of an Italian Decree of Parliament, pursuant to which an Agreement was entered into between the Republic of Italy on the one hand and the Italian Shipowners Confederation (Confitarma) on the other. This takes the dispute to a different level where the Governments of the two countries become involved. The Republic of Italy has, in fact, from the very beginning, asserted its right to try the two marines and has already commenced proceedings against them in Italy under penal provisions which could result in a sentence of 21 years of imprisonment if the said accused are convicted. In such a scenario, the State of Kerala, as one of the units of a federal unit, would not have any authority to try the accused who were outside the jurisdiction of the State unit. As mentioned hereinbefore, the extension of Section 188A I.P.C. to the Exclusive Maritime Zone, of which the Contiguous Zone is also a part, did not also exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent deals with the Exclusive Economic Zone of India and stipulates the same to be an area beyond and adjacent to the Territorial Waters extending upto 200 nautical miles from the nearest point of the baseline of the Kerala coast. It is quite clear that the Contiguous Zone is, therefore, within the Exclusive Economic Zone of India and the laws governing the Exclusive Economic Zone would also govern the incident which occurred within the Contiguous Zone, as defined under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. The provisions of the UNCLOS is in harmony with and not in conflict with the provisions of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, in this regard. Article 33 of the Convention recognises and describes the Contiguous Zone of a nation to extend to 24 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. This is in complete harmony with the provisions of the 1976 Act. Similarly, Articles 56 and 57 describe the rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the breadth thereof extending to 20 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. This provision is also in consonance wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve initiated criminal proceedings against the two marines. Even the provisions of Article 100 of UNCLOS may be used for the same purpose. Whether the accused acted on the misunderstanding that the Indian fishing vessel was a pirate vessel which caused the accused to fire, is a matter of evidence which can only be established during a trial. If the defence advanced on behalf of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is accepted, then only will the provisions of Article 100 of the Convention become applicable to the facts of the case. 95. The decision in the Lotus Case (supra) relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General would accordingly be dependent on whether the provisions of Article 97 of the Convention are attracted in the facts of this case. As already indicated hereinbefore, the expression incident of navigation in Article 97 cannot be extended to a criminal act, involving the killing of two Indian fishermen on board an Indian fishing vessel, although, the same was not flying the Indian flag. If at all, Article 100 of the Convention may stand attracted if and when the defence version of apprehension of a pirate attack is accepted by the Trial Court. In the Lotus case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its subjects and territories, of which the exercise of penal jurisdiction under the criminal law is an important part. In an area in which a country exercises sovereignty, its laws will prevail over other laws in case of a conflict between the two. On the other hand, a State may have sovereign rights over an area, which stops short of complete sovereignty as in the instant case where in view of the provisions both of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, and UNCLOS 1982, the Exclusive Economic Zone is extended to 200 nautical miles from the baseline for measurement of Territorial Waters. Although, the provisions of Section 188A I.P.C. have been extended to the Exclusive Economic Zone, the same are extended to areas declared as designated areas under the Act which are confined to installations and artificial islands, created for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources in and under the sea to the extent of 200 nautical miles, which also includes the area comprising the Continental Shelf of a country. However, the Exclusive Economic Zone continues to be part of the High Seas over which sovereignty cannot be exercised by any nation. 97. In my view, since India is a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be equated with rights of sovereignty over the said areas, in the Exclusive Economic Zone. It also provides for the Union of India to exercise other ancillary rights which only clothes the Union of India with sovereign rights and not rights of sovereignty in the Exclusive Economic Zone. The said position is reinforced under Sections 6 and 7 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, which also provides that India s sovereignty extends over its Territorial Waters while, the position is different in respect of the Exclusive Economic Zone. I am unable to accept Mr. Banerji s submissions to the contrary to the effect that Article 59 of the Convention permits States to assert rights or jurisdiction beyond those specifically provided in the Convention. 100. What, therefore, transpires from the aforesaid discussion is that while India is entitled both under its Domestic Law and the Public International Law to exercise rights of sovereignty upto 24 nautical miles from the baseline on the basis of which the width of Territorial Waters is measured, it can exercise only sovereign rights within the Exclusive Economic Zone for certain purposes. The incident of firing from the Italian vessel on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agitate the question of jurisdiction before the Trial Court which will be at liberty to reconsider the matter in the light of the evidence which may be adduced by the parties and in accordance with law. It is also made clear that nothing in this judgment should come in the way of such reconsideration, if such an application is made. 103. The Special Leave Petition and the Writ Petition, along with all connected applications, are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. CJI. (ALTAMAS KABIR) New Delhi Dated:January 18, 2013. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 135 OF 2012 Republic of Italy thro Ambassador Ors. Versus Union of India Ors. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 20370/2012 Massimilano Latorre Ors.Versus Union of India Ors. J U D G M E N T Chelameswar, J. 1. I agree with the conclusions recorded in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. But, I wish to supplement the following. 2. The substance of the submission made by Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioners is; (1) The incident in question occurred beyond the territory of India to which location ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Union.- 1) All lands, minerals and other things of value underlying the ocean within the territorial waters, or the continental shelf, or the exclusive economic zone, of India shall vest in the Union and be held for the purposes of the Union. 2) All other resources of the exclusive economic zone of India shall also vest in the Union and be held for the purposes of the Union. 3) The limits of the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone, and other maritime zones, of India shall be such as may be specified, from time to time, by or under any law made by Parliament. 7. Two things follow from the above declaration under Article 297. Firstly, India asserts its authority not only on the land mass of the territory of India specified under Article 1, but also over the areas specified under Article 297. It authorises the Parliament to specify the limits of such areas (maritime zones). The nature of the said authority may not be the same for the various maritime zones indicated in Article 297. However, the preponderance of judicial authority appears to be that the sovereignty of the coastal state extends to the territorial waters[3]. 8. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aters. Under sub-section (2), the limit of the territorial waters is specified to be twelve nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline: The limit of the territorial waters is the line every point of which is at a distance of twelve nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline. Sub-section (3) authorises the Government of India to alter the limit of the territorial waters by a notification approved by both the Houses of Parliament, with due regard to the International Law and State practice: Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), the Central Government may, whenever it considers necessary so to do having regard to International Law and State practice, alter, by notification in the Official Gazette, the limit of the territorial waters. 11. Section 5 defines contiguous zone to be an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters extending up to twenty-four nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline: Section 5(1): The contiguous zone of India (hereinafter referred to as the contiguous zone) is and area beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters and the limit of the contiguous zo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e may be, is part of the territory of India . Creation of such a legal fiction is certainly within the authority of the Sovereign Legislative Body. 14. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 7(7) of the Maritime Zones Act, the Government of India extended the application of both the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to the exclusive economic zone by a notification dated 27-08-1981. By the said notification, the Code of Criminal Procedure also stood modified. A new provision Section 188A - came to be inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows: 188A. Offence committed in exclusive economic zone: When an offence is committed by any person in the exclusive economic zone described in sub-section(1) of Section 7 of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (80 of 1976) or as altered by notification, if any, issued under sub-section (2) thereof, such person may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed in any place in which he may be found or in such other place as the Central Government may direct under Section 13 of the Said Act. 15. Unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this country[13]. As a necessary concomitant, this country ought to have the authority to apply and enforce the laws of this country against the persons and things beyond its territory when its legitimate interests are affected. In assertion of such a principle, various laws of this country are made applicable beyond its territory. 20. Section 2 read with 4 of the Indian Penal Code[14] makes the provisions of the Code applicable to the offences committed in any place without and beyond the territory of India; (1) by a citizen of India or (2) on any ship or aircraft registered in India, irrespective of its location, by any person not necessarily a citizen[15]. Such a declaration was made as long back as in 1898. By an amendment in 2009 to the said Section, the Code is extended to any person in any place without and beyond the territory of India , committing an offence targeting a computer resource located in India. 21. Similarly, Parliament enacted the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Maritime Navigation And Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2002 (Act No.69 of 2002), under Section 1(2), it is declared as follows: It extends to the whole of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 4(1) (2) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[17] prescribes the jurisdiction to deal with such offences. Each one of the above referred enactments also contains a provision parallel to Section 188. 27. Such assertion is not peculiar to India, but is also made by various other countries. For example, the issue arose in a case reported in R v. Baster [1971] 2 All ER 359 (C.A.). The accused posted letters in Northern Ireland to football pool promoters in England falsely claiming that he had correctly forecast the results of football matches and was entitled to winnings. He was charged with attempting to obtain property by deception contrary to Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. The accused contended that when the letters were posted in Northern Ireland the attempt was complete and as he had never left Northern Ireland during the relevant period, the attempt had not been committed within the jurisdiction of the English Courts. It was held: The attempt was committed within the jurisdiction because an offence could be said to be committing an attempt at every moment of the period between the commission of the proximate act necessary to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India is impermissible. 31. No doubt, this Court did make certain observations to the effect that under the Maritime Zones Act; ., India has been given only certain limited sovereign rights and such limited sovereign rights conferred on India in respect of continental shelf and exclusive economic zone cannot be equated to extending the sovereignty of India over the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone as in the case of territorial waters . 32. With great respect to the learned Judges, I am of the opinion that sovereignty is not given , but it is only asserted. No doubt, under the Maritime Zones Act, the Parliament expressly asserted sovereignty of this country over the territorial waters but, simultaneously, asserted its authority to determine / alter the limit of the territorial waters. 33. At any rate, the issue is not whether India can and, in fact, has asserted its sovereignty over areas beyond the territorial waters. The issue in the instant case is the authority of the Parliament to extend the laws beyond its territorial waters and the jurisdiction of this Court to examine the legality of such exercise. Even on the facts of Aban Loyd case, it can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c zone. Even under UNCLOS, Article 57 stipulates that the exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured . It follows from a combined reading of Articles 55 and 57 that within the limit of 200 nautical miles, measured as indicated under Article 57, the authority of each coastal State to prescribe the limits of exclusive economic zone is internationally recognised. The declaration under Section 7(1) of the Maritime Zones Act, which stipulates the limit of the exclusive economic zone, is perfectly in tune with the terms of UNCLOS. Therefore, Article 97 of UNCLOS has no application to the exclusive economic zone, of which the contiguous zone is a part and that is the area relevant, in the context of the incident in question. For that reason, the second submission of Shri Salve should also fail. .J. ( J. CHELAMESWAR ) New Delhi; January 18, 2013. OUT TODAY ITEM NO.IA COURT NO.1 SECTION X [FOR JUDGMENT] S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Home Ministry, immediately upon receipt of a copy of this judgment . Let copies of these judgments/Orders be made available to the learned advocates of the respective parties and also to a representative of the petitioner No.1. In addition, let copies of these Judgments be also sent to the High Court of Kerala, as also the trial court at Kollam, who are to act on the basis thereof immediately on receipt of the same. Till such time as the Special Court is set up, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 will be under the custody of this Court. Let copies of these Judgments/Orders be communicated to the Kerala High Court and the court of the Magistrate at Kollam and also to the City Police Commissioner, Kochi and D.C.P.Kochi Airport, by E-mail, at the cost of the petitioners. The Writ Petition and the Special Leave Petition, along with all connected applications, are disposed of in terms of the signed judgments. (Sheetal Dhingra) (Juginder Kaur) Court Master Assistant Registrar [Signed Reportable Judgments are placed on the file] ----------------------- [1] Article 97. Penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or any oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the State, but compulsory. Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, writing before he became a judge of the International Court of Justice, quoted McNair's observation with approval, and considered that it was also implicit in the decision of the Word Court in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case. It follows, therefore, that the territorial waters are not only territory but also a compulsory appurtenance to the coastal state. Hence the observation by L.F.E. Goldie that it has long been accepted that territorial waters, their supera=-mbient air, their sea-bed and subsoil, vest in the coastal State ipso jure (i.e., without any proclamation or effective occupation being necessary) . ----from The New Law of Maritime Zones by P.C.Rao (Page 22) [3] The territorial sea appertains to the territorial sovereignty of the coastal state and thus belongs to it automatically. For example, all newly independent states (with a coast) come to independence with an entitlement to a territorial sea. There have been a number of theories as to the precise legal character of the territorial sea of the coastal state, ranging from treating the territorial sea as part of the res communis, but subject to certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enactment, relating to any matter referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (4), for the time being in force in India or any part thereof to the contiguous zone. [10] Section 7(7)(a) : extend, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment for the time being in force in India or any part thereof in the exclusive economic zone or any part thereof. [11] Article 245 : Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of State.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. (2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation. [12] See: Macleod v. Attorney General of New South Wales (1891) AC 455, 451-58 and Huntington v. Attrill (1893) AC 150. [13] P C Rao Indian Constitution and International Law , page 42 [14] See AIR 1955 SC 367 = Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail Calcutta para 34. also (2002) 2 SCC 465 = Chairman, Railway Board amp; Others -vs- Mrs.Chandrim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
