Plea to recall UN ambassador in Geneva dismissed by Madras HC

The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed at the admission stage a petition seeking a direction to the Centre to recall the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations in Geneva.

The petitioner, K.Balu, an advocate, said the UN Human Rights Council session was held in March . A draft resolution was introduced by 42 countries, including the U.S., for promoting reconciliation accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.

This was opposed by Sri Lanka. Supporters of the resolution insisted and explained the need for the constitution of an international inquiry commission taking note of the continuous ongoing violation of rights in Sri Lanka.

Mr. Balu said India was represented by the Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Dilip Sinha. India conveyed its decision to abstain in the vote. Pakistan made a request for deletion of a paragraph in the resolution which included the undertaking of a comprehensive investigation into the alleged serious violation and abuse of human rights and related crimes by both Sri Lanka and the LTTE during the period covered by Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC.) Pakistan also sought an adjournment in favour of Sri Lanka. To everyone’s surprise, Mr.Sinha voted in favour of the adjournment. Thus the official’s decision to vote supporting Pakistan was contrary to India’s decision to abstain from voting.

Justice M. Sathyanarayanan said India’s explanation would indicate that it opined that any external investigative mechanism with an open-ended mandate to monitor national processes for protection of human rights in a country was not reflective of the constructive approach of dialogue and cooperation envisaged by the UN General Assembly resolution that created the Human Rights Council.

In the light of India’s stand, no positive direction could be issued to the Centre to consider the petitioner’s representation and take action against Mr.Sinha. The petitioner assumed that the official had acted contrary to the written explanation, but the contents of the explanation did indicate otherwise, the Judge said.