The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to intervene in a plea by an Indian national, detained in Prague and accused of involvement in an alleged conspiracy to murder U.S.-based Khalistani activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, for assistance from the government to defend his rights in the foreign court.
A Bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court could not do anything in a sensitive matter involving public international law, and it was up to the government of India to decide how to deal with the issue.
“This is a sensitive matter for the government also. It has its own ramifications. We will not make any statements in this court. It is for the government to do what they want to do,” Justice Khanna addressed senior advocate C.A. Sundaram and advocate Rohini Musa.
Justice Khanna said the Supreme Court had to respect the principles of international law and the comity and sovereignty of courts.
Consular access
“The only thing you are entitled to under the Vienna Convention is consular access. In case consular access is denied or not accessible, you can approach the authorities,” the judge told Mr. Sundaram.
The Bench noted that, according to his own petition, he was given consular access. An officer of the Indian embassy in Prague had visited him while in detention on September 17, 2023. Besides, the petitioner, identified anonymously as ‘Mr. X’, had successfully moved the Delhi High Court for release of documents.
“I was given the extradition order only yesterday. Against that, I can appeal. I need consular assistance. That is all I am asking… It is not that consular assistance is given once and dusted. It is an ongoing process… I have no access to an interpreter or translator. I am only asking the government of India, as an Indian citizen, to give me assistance in those regards. Nothing more, nothing less. I am only seeking legal aid from the government… I have sought assistance from the Indian embassy and Ministry of External Affairs in this regard… I have not received a response from any of them,” Mr. Sundaram submitted.
He said a subsequent indictment of Mr. X, which superseded an earlier one, was “completely on the basis that he had acted at the behest, if I may say so, at the instructions of the authorities concerned with the Union of India”.
“We are not going to allow you to touch that part… We are not concerned with the issue pending over there… It is a sensitive matter for the Government of India,” Justice Khanna intervened.
Mr. Sundaram said this was however also a question of human rights.
“We are aware of that, but you are governed by the law of that country. We will go strictly by the Vienna Convention,” Justice Khanna replied.
“I am only saying my own country has to assist me,” Mr. Sundaram persisted.
The senior lawyer urged the court to at least treat the writ petition as a representation to the government. The court recorded the submission of the lawyer without making any comments, allowing the government to proceed according to law.
In an earlier hearing, Mr. Sundaram had said the case against his client in Prague was transformed into a “diplomatic and political quagmire between India and the United States”. He had described the petitioner as a “hapless victim caught in the crossfire”. He pleaded for the Supreme Court’s intervention to “navigate this intricate web of international relations and secure his rights”.
