Jurisdiction ruling: Kerala Police lacked authority over Contiguous Zone in Indian fishermen shooting case

The court held that the Kerala State Police lacked jurisdiction over the Contiguous Zone where the incident involving the shooting of two Indian fishermen by Italian marines occurred. It ruled that the Union of India, not the State of Kerala, has the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses in that zone. The court directed the establishment of a Special Court by the Union of India to handle the case, emphasizing adherence to the Maritime Zones Act, Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and UNCLOS. The Italian marines were permitted to be moved to Delhi, under the custody of the Italian Embassy, until the Special Court is set up.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Kerala State Police.
2. Applicability of Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Interpretation of UNCLOS and its provisions.
4. Sovereign immunity and international law principles.
5. Rights and obligations under the Maritime Zones Act, 1976.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Kerala State Police:
The incident involving the shooting of two Indian fishermen by Italian marines occurred 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala, within the Contiguous Zone. The Kerala State Police registered an FIR and arrested the marines. The court held that the Kerala State Police lacked jurisdiction over the Contiguous Zone, as it is beyond their territorial waters. The extension of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the Contiguous Zone does not vest the Kerala Police with the power to investigate or try the offense. The Union of India, not the State of Kerala, is entitled to take cognizance, investigate, and prosecute offenses in the Contiguous Zone.

2. Applicability of Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court examined whether the IPC and CrPC apply to the incident. The Maritime Zones Act, 1976, extends Indian laws to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Contiguous Zone through notifications. The court noted that the IPC and CrPC had been extended to the EEZ, but this does not automatically confer jurisdiction on state authorities. The Union of India retains jurisdiction over such zones for enforcing domestic laws.

3. Interpretation of UNCLOS and its Provisions:
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out the legal framework for maritime activities. Article 97 of UNCLOS, which deals with penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or any other incident of navigation, was scrutinized. The court held that the firing incident does not fall under "incident of navigation" as intended by Article 97. Instead, it is a criminal act subject to domestic laws. Article 100 of UNCLOS, which calls for cooperation in suppressing piracy, was also considered, but it was determined that it did not apply to the facts of this case.

4. Sovereign Immunity and International Law Principles:
The Italian marines claimed sovereign immunity, arguing that they were acting in their official capacity under Italian law and international anti-piracy regulations. The court acknowledged the principles of sovereign immunity but emphasized that such immunity does not extend to criminal acts. The court also referenced the "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States" which requires that disputes involving sovereign acts be handled at the federal level, not by state units.

5. Rights and Obligations under the Maritime Zones Act, 1976:
The court analyzed the rights and obligations conferred by the Maritime Zones Act, 1976. The Act defines the territorial waters, Contiguous Zone, and EEZ, and extends certain sovereign rights to these zones. However, it distinguishes between sovereign rights and full sovereignty. The court concluded that while India has sovereign rights in the EEZ and Contiguous Zone, these do not equate to full sovereignty, and the Union of India, not state authorities, has jurisdiction over these areas.

Conclusion:
The court directed the Union of India to set up a Special Court to try the case, emphasizing that the State of Kerala does not have jurisdiction. The Special Court will proceed in accordance with the Maritime Zones Act, IPC, CrPC, and UNCLOS, ensuring that international obligations are respected. The court also allowed the Italian marines to be moved to Delhi, under the custody of the Italian Embassy, until the Special Court is constituted. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to international law principles while asserting domestic legal rights in maritime zones.

---