Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 81 [International Law]

Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law that protects diplomats from the jurisdiction of the courts and authorities of the country in which they are posted. It is mainly governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. The purpose of this immunity is not to give diplomats a personal privilege, but to ensure that they can perform their official functions independently and without interference from the receiving state.

A diplomatic agent generally enjoys immunity from arrest, detention and criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. In most situations, the diplomat also enjoys immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction, subject to certain recognised exceptions. However, diplomatic immunity does not mean that the diplomat is free from all legal responsibility. The sending state may expressly waive the immunity and allow proceedings to take place.

The receiving state may also declare a diplomat persona non grata and require the sending state to recall that person. Separately, the conduct of a diplomat may raise questions of state responsibility if an internationally wrongful act is attributable to the sending state and amounts to a breach of an international obligation.

Passage:

Colonel Harish Menon, a senior military attaché posted at the Embassy of Veloria in New Delhi, India, was involved in a road accident in which his speeding vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian, Rakesh Gupta, on Ring Road.

The police arrived at the scene and attempted to detain Colonel Menon, but he produced his diplomatic identity card. The Velorian Embassy formally invoked diplomatic immunity on behalf of Colonel Menon under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs acknowledged the immunity but registered a formal protest with the Velorian government, demanding that Colonel Menon be recalled and tried in Veloria. The Velorian government agreed to recall him but stated that it would determine independently whether to prosecute.

After Colonel Menon returned to Veloria, Veloria closed the matter without initiating any criminal proceedings. The family of Rakesh Gupta subsequently filed a civil suit in an Indian court against the Velorian government, claiming compensation. India formally raised a claim of state responsibility against Veloria before an international forum.

Q1. Can Indian courts proceed with the civil suit filed by Rakesh Gupta’s family against the Velorian government?

(A) Yes, because the death occurred on Indian soil and Indian courts have territorial jurisdiction over all persons.

(B) Yes, because diplomatic immunity does not extend to tortious acts causing death on Indian roads.

(C) No, because a foreign state enjoys immunity from civil jurisdiction in the courts of another state under the principle of state immunity, and Veloria has not waived it.

(D) No, because the family should first exhaust remedies in Velorian courts before approaching Indian courts.

Q2. The Indian government’s decision to demand the recall of Colonel Menon without arresting him was:

(A) Legally correct, as India could only declare him persona non grata and request his recall—it could not arrest or prosecute him given his diplomatic immunity.

(B) Legally incorrect, because military attachés do not enjoy full personal immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

(C) Legally incorrect, because India should have waived Veloria’s immunity on humanitarian grounds.

(D) Legally correct, but only if Veloria had first expressly consented to the arrest.

Q3. Veloria’s decision to close the matter without any criminal proceedings after Colonel Menon’s return may give rise to:

(A) No legal consequences, as Veloria’s domestic prosecution decisions are entirely within its sovereign discretion.

(B) A valid claim of state responsibility by India if Veloria’s failure to prosecute constitutes a breach of its international obligation to ensure accountability for the wrongful acts of its diplomatic agents.

(C) A valid claim only if India and Veloria have a specific bilateral treaty requiring mutual prosecution of diplomatic personnel.

(D) A valid claim only before the International Criminal Court, not any other international forum.

Q4. If Veloria wished to allow Colonel Menon to be prosecuted in India, what formal step would be required?

(A) Veloria would need to obtain prior authorisation from the UN Security Council.

(B) Colonel Menon himself would need to personally waive his own immunity in writing.

(C) India would need to formally request waiver through diplomatic channels and Veloria would decide.

(D) Veloria would need to expressly waive Colonel Menon’s immunity, as diplomatic immunity belongs to the sending state and can only be waived by it.

Q5. Regarding India’s formal protest to Veloria about the incident, under international law, such a diplomatic protest:

(A) Preserves India’s legal position and places Veloria on formal notice of India’s objection, which is a recognised act in the law of state responsibility.

(B) Automatically creates binding obligations on Veloria to prosecute Colonel Menon.

(C) Has no legal effect unless supported by a UN Security Council resolution.

(D) Constitutes a countermeasure against Veloria that may entitle Veloria to take reciprocal action.

This practice set is from: CLAT Legal Reasoning Course & Question Bank → International Law