Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10107
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ, A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
MARGRET D CRUZ – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WA/1271/2013
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO, SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.R. SYAMKUMAR
The state has discretion regarding claims at the International Court of Justice, particularly when local remedies are available and no direct state responsibility is implicated.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Writ Appeal - International Court of Justice Section List - The court reviewed the legal frameworks regarding state responsibility, including 'Shariat Law' and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, determining that the Government of India was not obliged to raise a claim before the ICJ on behalf of the petitioner for compensation due to the lack of liable parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compensation for her husband’s death in a 1985 bomb blast in Saudi Arabia, claiming injustice due to the Saudi government's failure to investigate the incident. The Indian Embassy's efforts for compensation via local law proved fruitless, leading to this writ appeal for a mandamus against the Government of India to file a claim in the International Court of Justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s circumstances did not fulfill the criteria for an ICJ state claim because the Saudi authorities did not hold anyone responsible under Shariat Law and previous efforts to gain local compensation were insufficient. The respondent's obligations under international law were discussed, leading to the conclusion that no proper basis for the relief claimed was presented.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a valid claim for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Indian government to raise a compensation claim before the International Court of Justice due to the circumstances surrounding her husband's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that under the Statute of the International Court of Justice, only states can bring claims; personal claims cannot be pursued without state action. The absence of responsible parties under local law further precluded India’s obligation to act, and ICJ engagement was deemed inappropriate.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Ashok Bhushan, C.J.
This writ appeal has been field against the judgment dated 01.03.2013 in O.P. No. 13514 of 1997 by which judgment the learned Single Judge disposed of the Original Petition directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to comply with the order passed by the Prime Minister's Office dated 15.02.2013, sanctioning the financial assistance of Rs.5 lakhs to the family of the petitioner and further directing the State Government to disburse an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge referring to above payments as settlement left open the legal issues involved in the case.
2. The petitioner aggrieved by the said judgment has come up in this writ appeal. The parties shall be referred to as described in the Original Petition. In the Original petition, statement, counter affidavits and other affidavits were filed by the respondents to which reply was also filed by the petitioner.
3. The facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are as follows: The petitioner's husband, Sri.Wilfred D'Cruz, was employed as Telex Operator in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) in a company named “M/s.Jassir.S.AL-Obeid Corporation for Trading and Contracting”. On 18.05.1985 when the Wilfred D'Cruz was walking towards the bus stop from his office, some explosive substance kept in a garbage can by the side of the road exploded, which killed him. The body of the husband of the petitioner was sent by the authorities of the Saudi Government after 2½ months. The company, under which the petitioner's husband was employed, sent a communication dated 28.07.1985 addressed to the Indian Embassy Riyadh sending a cheque of Saudi Riyal 6668/- as salary of May, 1985, transportation allowances, Housing Allowances, overtime work and Ramadan Bonus. The petitioner sent a letter dated 13.05.1986 (Ext.P4) to the Ambassador, Embassy of India, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia requesting that effective steps be taken against the employer as well as against the Government so that petitioner and her minor children are justly compensated. The Embassy of India sent a communication dated 24.06.1986 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Ext.P5) requesting the Ministry to impress upon the authorities concerned for an early settlement of the case and transfer the death compensation (blood-money) to the Indian Embassy at the earliest for the onward disbursement to the legal heirs. A copy of the letter was also enclosed to the petitioner informing that death compensation matter is being pursued and a request was also made to execute Power of Attorney in favour of the Ambassador, Embassy of India, Riyadh and to forward to the Embassy to take up the matter with the concerned authorities. The petitioner and other legal heirs executed Power of Attorney on 05.09.1986 in favour of the Ambassador of Indian Embassy, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
4. Another letter dated 20.04.1987 was written by the Embassy of India to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh requesting to impress upon the authorities for early settlement of the case and transfer of the Blood-Money and legal dues to the Embassy at the earliest to the legal heirs of the deceased Wilfred D'Cruz. The Embassy of India sent a letter dated 04.11.1987 to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi (Ext.P8) whereby the Ministry of External Affairs was informed that the Embassy of India has been taking up the case to the Saudi Government at regular intervals but response from the Saudi Government regarding the death compensation is awaited. It was further mentioned that no death compensation would become payable unless a third party responsibility is fixed for the bomb-blast.
5. A Member of Parliament, Prof. K.V.Thomas, sent a letter in the year 1987 which was forwarded by Ministry of External Affairs on 21.10.1987 regarding payment of the death compensation due to the death of Wilfred D'Cruz who died in Riyadh on 18.05.1985. Another letter was sent
