The Supreme Court (SC) of India would keep the Italian marines’ case alive.
What is the SC decision?
The SC would keep the case alive until Italy pays adequate compensation for the killing of two fishermen by its marines in 2012.
It has indicated that it would not allow the closure of the trial until such compensation is paid.
It has ordered that the families of the victims be heard on this matter.
It may seem pragmatic to keep any pending litigation alive until all dues relating to it are paid and all legal issues are settled.
However, the SC’s stand in the marines’ case is somewhat puzzling.
What did the PCA rule?
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague is an arbitral tribunal.
It adjudicates disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
In the Mariners’ case, the PCA has granted immunity to the marines.
It also favoured Italy as the appropriate jurisdiction where they could be tried for the crime.
The PCA wants India to compensate for loss of life, physical harm, damage to property and moral harm suffered by the crew members of St. Antony, the fishing vessel involved.
It mandated negotiations on the quantum.
Why pending the case doesn’t seem like a good idea?
The Indian government has already declared that it would abide by the PCA’s ruling.
So, it does not seem proper to delay the process of bringing closure to the matter.
The Court’s resolve to obtain adequate compensation for the families of the victims is welcome.
But, it would be difficult to have a judicial determination of what quantum would satisfy these requirements.
The Centre may have approached the top court for formal permission to close the pending trial proceedings as a matter of abundant caution.
But, it could have approached the trial court itself through the public prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of the CrPC.
Too many legal tangles have already caused enough diplomatic rupture in the progression of the Enrica Lexie-St. Antony case since 2012.
What could be done?
The pendency of the matter in court should not become a bargaining point that delays the reaching of a fair settlement.
Continuing hearings may be seen as India being reluctant to cease all criminal proceedings against the marines as per the ruling.
India’s focus should now be on negotiating for compensation and ensuring a purposive criminal trial in Italy.
