India's Evolving Stand on Diplomatic Immunity: Time for a Rethink

Diplomatic and state immunities serve as critical instruments in preserving the functional independence of foreign representatives and the sovereign equality of states, principles deeply embedded in international law.

- Dr. Manvendra Singh & Shrabana Chattopadhyay

However, in a modern constitutional democracy like India, these immunities must be examined through the prism of constitutional guarantees, particularly fundamental rights. This paper explores the interplay between diplomatic and state immunities and the Indian constitutional framework, highlighting judicial interpretations and emerging trends. It further argues for a rights-sensitive legal regime and legislative reforms that reflect India's evolving global engagement and domestic constitutional ethos.

Diplomatic and state immunities are foundational to the conduct of international relations, safeguarding diplomats and foreign states from legal processes in host jurisdictions. While these immunities are intended to facilitate diplomacy and respect sovereignty, they often pose significant challenges in domestic legal systems, especially those committed to the rule of law and access to justice. India's constitutional architecture—particularly Articles 14, 21, 51, and 253—shapes and occasionally limits the extent to which these immunities can be granted or upheld. This paper undertakes a critical study of how Indian courts have navigated these legal complexities in light of domestic constitutional mandates and international obligations.

Diplomatic Immunity: Legal Basis and Indian Application

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), 1961, codifies diplomatic immunity and is a near-universally accepted instrument in international law. Article 31 of the VCDR provides for complete criminal immunity and limited civil and administrative immunity for diplomatic agents. India implemented this treaty through the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972.

In