Diplomatic immunity protects diplomats and their staff from legal actions in host countries. However, its scope has limits. The case of Mr. X—a clerk at the Indian embassy in England—tests how far this protection extends when criminal allegations arise and immunity is waived.
Facts of the Case
Mr. X served as a clerk at the Indian Embassy in England. Authorities accused him of stealing confidential documents. On the same day, the Indian Ambassador officially waived Mr. X’s diplomatic immunities. Following this, local police arrested Mr. X and initiated court proceedings.
In his defense, Mr. X claimed that his status as a staff member of the diplomatic mission gave him immunity from arrest and trial under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. He argued that he remained entitled to protection as a servant of a diplomatic envoy.
Issues of the Case
- Does Mr. X qualify for diplomatic immunity under international law?
- Can a diplomatic mission waive the immunity of a non-diplomatic staff member?
- Is Mr. X entitled to immunity despite the Ambassador’s waiver?
- Does his role and the nature of his act affect his protection under the Vienna Convention?
Principles and Related Case
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 governs the rules regarding diplomatic immunity. Article 37 of the Convention states that staff members of the mission enjoy limited immunity in the receiving state. Administrative and technical staff like clerks usually enjoy immunity only in relation to acts performed in the course of their official duties.
Importantly, Article 32 allows the sending state to waive immunity explicitly. Such waiver removes legal protection and makes the individual subject to the jurisdiction of the receiving state.
In Mr. X’s case, the Indian Ambassador waived the immunity on the same day the theft occurred. This act holds legal weight under the Convention. Moreover, stealing official documents cannot fall under official functions—it is a criminal offense.
A key precedent is the case of U.S. v. Al Sharaf (1985), where the court upheld the waiver of immunity for administrative staff involved in a criminal offense outside their official duties. The case reaffirmed that immunity is not a shield for personal misconduct
Judgment
Mr. X does not succeed in claiming immunity. His position as a clerk gives him only functional immunity—that is, protection for official acts. The alleged theft was a criminal offense unrelated to his administrative role.
Additionally, the Ambassador’s waiver of immunity was valid and aligned with Article 32 of the Vienna Convention. Since the act of waiver occurred before Mr. X’s arrest, the legal protection had already been removed when proceedings began.
The court found that Mr. X was subject to the jurisdiction of English courts. His claim of immunity could not withstand legal scrutiny. The judgment emphasized that diplomatic immunity cannot be used to shield criminal actions that are outside the scope of official duties.
