The Madras High Court on Monday sought to know whether the dismissal of a case filed by the Seychelles Ambassador-at-large and famous businessman ‘Aircel’ C. Sivasankaran, challenging a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him, would in any way affect the diplomatic relations between India and Seychelles.
Justice P.N. Prakash told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) G. Rajagopalan that though he was not inclined to entertain the case filed by the diplomat-cum-businessman, he also did not want any order passed by him to affect the sovereign functions of the State and its relationship with foreign countries. The judge granted time till September 18 to obtain instructions from the Union Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
He said the Ministry should also consider whether it would be able to extradite the businessman if the LoC against him was quashed and he was allowed to fly to other countries. Earlier, CBI Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) K. Srinivasan and SPP for Enforcement Directorate N. Ramesh produced two communications received by them from the MEA on August 16 and 19, explaining the diplomatic status enjoyed by the businessman.
The August 16 communication stated that the High Commission of India in Seychelles requested the government of Seychelles for information as to whether he had been appointed as Ambassador-at-large by that country, as claimed by him. “The Seychelles government has informed [us] that although Mr. Sivasankaran is a Seychelles Ambassador-at-large and has been issued a diplomatic passport, his presence in India was not on any official duty on behalf of their government,” the communication, signed by Adarsh Swaika, Director (Indian Ocean Region), MEA, read.
Subsequently, on August 19, the same official clarified that though Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states that a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State, it would not apply to the present case of the businessman.
“As per Article 31(c) of the Convention, a diplomatic agent does not enjoy such immunity in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions,” Mr. Swaika had pointed out.
In the present case, the LOC had been issued in connection with alleged wrongful loss of more than ₹600 crore caused to the IDBI Bank by obtaining loans in connivance with top officials. The CBI had booked the petitioner and others in April last year following a complaint lodged by the Central Vigilance Commission in October 2017.
According to the FIR, the IDBI Bank sanctioned a loan for ₹322.40 crore to Finnish power generation firm Win Windy Oy (WWO) in October 2010. WWO was eventually granted voluntary bankruptcy by a court in Finland in October 2013. It was the case of the CBI that the Seychelles-based Siva Investments and Holdings Limited (SIHL) was the holding company of WWO and that SIHL was part of the Siva group of companies, of which the writ petitioner was the chairman.
Despite knowing this, the top brass of the IDBI Bank and the promoter-directors of Siva group of companies sanctioned a loan for ₹523 crore to Axcel Sunshine Limited, a company based in the British Virgin Islands and an associate of the Siva group, the prosecution claimed. However, in an affidavit filed in the High Court, the petitioner claimed that his name had been included erroneously. He claimed to have ceased to be a director of the Siva group of companies back in 2008. He also disassociated himself from Axcel Sunshine Limited.