All heads of state and leaders of delegations to UN covered by same law.
By Sujeet Rajan
NEW YORK: The US government has made it clear that an order by a federal court in New York to serve summons to the prime minister of India Narendra Modi, will have no legal ramifications, as visiting heads of state have total immunity from suits in courts in the country.
Sikhs for Justice, an activist group, has been pursuing legal tactics in US courts for several years now, to get monetary compensation for the victims of the 1982 anti-Sikh riots. Their method has been getting court orders to serve summons on Congress party leaders, including Sonia Gandhi and the former prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. The constant barrage of lawsuits also ensured that they got publicity for it, and kept the issue alive in public memory.
It’s been a futile exercise though, as courts in New York have thrown out the cases against Sonia Gandhi, and another case against Singh has been quashed in the District of Columbia.
The group has not relented, however, and have been gathering a petition to stop the White House from inviting Modi. That petition has now crossed 100,000 signatures. The court order on Modi, served on Thursday, was to coincide with his arrival in New York today.
On Thursday, the American Justice Center, a non-profit human rights organization had the federal court in the southern district of New York issue an order on behalf of two unidentified victims living in the US, to serve summons on Modi, and thereafter gave a period of 21 days for him to respond, in connection with the atrocities committed during the 2002 Gujarat riots against Muslims.
The order was based on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), which empowers courts in the US to hear lawsuits filed by US residents.
The 28-page complaint charges Modi with “committing crimes against humanity, extra-judicial killings, torture and inflicting mental and physical trauma on the victims, mostly from the Muslim community.”
The court’s order meant that Modi could be served summons indirectly, even by someone throwing papers at his feet. If Modi were to pick it up, then it would be considered that legally he has been served. If nothing else, it meant an embarrassing situation for the prime minister, and a legal dispute that could have snowballed into a legal and diplomatic row between the US and India.
However, the Obama administration was quick to come to the defense of Modi. In a teleconference with journalists, officials clarified that the court order would in no way impinge upon Modi’s visit, as visiting heads of state enjoy total immunity from lawsuits in the US.
“While we cannot comment specifically on this lawsuit, I can tell you that as a general legal principle, sitting heads of government enjoy immunity from suits in American courts,” an official said.
He added: “Sitting heads of government also enjoy personal inviolability while in the United States, which means they cannot be personally handed or delivered papers or summons to begin the process of this. As a matter of treaty, heads of delegation to the UN General Assembly enjoy immunity while in New York to attend the UN event.”
Ravi Batra, the New York-based attorney who has handled the case for Sonia Gandhi, told The American Bazaar in an interview that the case on Modi is “dead on arrival.”
When asked if the matter could be pursued against Modi years down the road, like in the case of Singh, when he is out of office, Batra said the matter could be kept alive in US courts, and the only way was to have it argued get it dismissed, like in the case of Gandhi.
“That Prime Minister Modi currently has head-of-state immunity is irrelevant to those who use lawsuits to generate only publicity and are equal opportunity haters of India no matter whom the Indians elect as part of India’s stunning democracy: Indian National Congress or BJP,” said Batra.
Batra said the Sikhs for Justice’s act against Modi was “is at best legally impotent and at worst an act of lunacy.”
He added: “Pity that the State Department has to act and issue it’s so-called “Suggestion of Immunity,” even as it’s binding upon the court and will cause this case to be dismissed.”