Republic of Italy and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 05 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
This case pertains to an incident that occurred on February 15, 2012, when two Italian naval officers fired upon an Indian fishing vessel, resulting in the death of two fishermen. The Republic of Italy challenged the jurisdiction of the State of Kerala in registering the FIR, investigating the matter, and arresting the accused. The High Court of Kerala dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the accused, prompting them to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India. [Para 20]
II. Jurisdiction of Kerala State Police
The Supreme Court first addressed the jurisdiction of the Kerala State Police to investigate the incident. It was determined that the incident occurred 20.5 nautical miles from the coastline of Kerala, within the Contiguous Zone. According to the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, the Kerala Police has no jurisdiction in this area, even with the extension of Section 188A of the Indian Penal Code. The Union of India has the authority to investigate and prosecute any violations in the Contiguous Zone. [Paras 84, 85]
III. Jurisdiction of Indian Courts
The Court then examined the jurisdiction of Indian courts to try the accused Italian marines. The incident involved Italian marines accused of a crime in international waters, leading to disputes at the governmental level. The State of Kerala does not have the authority to try the accused. [Para 86]
IV. Application of UNCLOS and Maritime Zones Act
The case involved the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Maritime Zones Act, 1976. The Court noted that India, as a signatory of UNCLOS 1982, is obligated to respect its provisions and apply them if there is no conflict with domestic law. [Para 97]
A. Territorial Waters and Sovereignty
The Court discussed the concept of sovereignty and its application to territorial waters. It was established that the sovereignty of a coastal state extends to its territorial waters, which is a wellaccepted principle of international law. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]
B. Contiguous Zone and Exclusive Economic Zone
The Court examined the provisions of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, and UNCLOS regarding the Contiguous Zone and the Exclusive Economic Zone. It was noted that India has sovereign rights within the Contiguous Zone, but only sovereign rights within the Exclusive Economic Zone for specific purposes, such as resource exploration and energy production. [Paras 12, 31, 96]
C. Incident of Navigation and Article 97 of UNCLOS
The Court considered whether the incident could be classified as an "incident of navigation" under Article 97 of UNCLOS. It was determined that the expression "incident of navigation" does not cover a criminal act, such as the killing of Indian fishermen on a foreign vessel. Therefore, Article 97 of UNCLOS, which deals with penal jurisdiction in navigation incidents, does not apply to the present case. [Paras 34, 35, 95]
V. Concurrent Jurisdiction and Article 100 of UNCLOS
The Court acknowledged the possibility of concurrent jurisdiction between India and Italy in this case. It stated that if there is evidence of concurrent jurisdiction, the directions given in the judgment may be reconsidered. The accused Italian marines were also granted the right to invoke Article 100 of UNCLOS, which requires states to cooperate in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside a state's jurisdiction. [Paras 20, 27, 99]
VI. Establishment of a Special Court
The Court directed the Union of India to set up a Special Court to try the case in accordance with the Maritime Zones Act, the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and UNCLOS 1982. [Para 99]
VII. Conclusion
The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition and the Writ Petition, ruling that the State of Kerala did not have jurisdiction to investigate the incident, and that a Special Court established by the Union of India would have the authority to try the accused Italian marines. The Court also acknowledged the potential for concurrent jurisdiction between India and Italy, subject to the presentation of evidence, and granted the accused the right to invoke Article 100 of UNCLOS.
RELATED Blog
0 comments