Foreign courts and India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Orders passed by foreign courts
Not binding, but Indian authorities can take note
In a significant order issued, a full bench of the Bombay high court ruled courts and quasijudicial forums in this country can take note of the conviction of an Indian citizen by a foreign court, but the judgment will not be binding on such authorities in India.
The full bench was called upon to decide the issue while dealing with an application filed by Prabodh Mehta, a trustee of the multi-specialty Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre in Bandra. In 2013, the joint charity commissioner had dismissed Mehta as a trustee of the hospital over his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude by a court in Belgium.
“We are of the considered view that though the judgment and order of conviction of a foreign court can be noticed, looked into and recognised by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities in India, it cannot be said that the same will be ipso facto binding on such courts and authorities,” said the bench comprising justices Bhushan Gavi, K R Shriram and Burgess Colabawalla.
“If we hold that such a judgment of a foreign court for an offence committed in that country is binding on the courts and authorities in India, it will amount to directly or indirectly enforcing the judgment of the foreign court... No hard and fast rule can be laid for that purpose,” said the bench. The HC said courts in India will have to take a call based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Senior advocate Rafiq Dada, counsel for Mehta, had said Indian courts cannot take note of judgments of a foreign court. The HC did not agree and said such a view would not only be “against public policy and principle of comity of nations”, but also amount to depriving the rights of a person.
The court referred to the rights available under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code about double jeopardy which state a person convicted or acquitted for a crime cannot be tried again for the same charges.
The bench cited the example of a person who has been acquitted of a crime like murder in a foreign country or aboard a ship or airplane, in which case an Indian court will have to take note of the judgment.
“If the argument that the order of conviction cannot be looked into is to be accepted, not only would it be contrary to public policy of not permitting a person convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude to contest elections, it would also be against the breach of the comity which should exist between countries,” said the high court.
