Supreme Court allows M.T. Enrica Lexie to sail, imposes conditions

The Supreme Court allowed the vessel M.T. Enrica Lexie to commence its voyage, overturning the Kerala High Court's decision to detain the vessel. Specific conditions were imposed, including undertakings from key personnel and a bond for compliance. The Court accepted the Republic of Italy's assurance for the presence of the Marines involved in the incident. The settlements between Italy and claimants were not considered in the appeal. The Court emphasized that the investigation should not hinder the vessel's voyage and that Italy's assurance did not impede Kerala's right to investigate and prosecute.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention of the vessel M.T. Enrica Lexie.
2. Jurisdiction of Indian authorities over the incident.
3. Validity of settlements reached between the Republic of Italy and claimants-plaintiffs.
4. Conditions for allowing the vessel to commence its voyage.
5. Assurance for the presence of Italian Marines involved in the incident.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention of the Vessel M.T. Enrica Lexie:
The vessel M.T. Enrica Lexie and its owner, M/s Dolphin Tanker SRL, were aggrieved by the Kerala High Court's Division Bench order, which set aside the Single Judge's decision allowing the vessel to sail. The FIR lodged at Neendakara Coastal Police Station alleged that the vessel fired upon the Indian fishing boat St. Antony, resulting in the death of two fishermen. The vessel was intercepted and brought to Cochin Port, and the Circle Inspector issued a letter prohibiting the vessel's voyage without prior sanction.

The Supreme Court noted that the police officer could seize property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it is suspected to be stolen or linked to the commission of an offense. However, the Government of Kerala conceded that the vessel was not the object of the crime, nor was there suspicion of its involvement in the offense. Consequently, the Division Bench's order overturning the Single Judge's decision was set aside.

2. Jurisdiction of Indian Authorities Over the Incident:
The Republic of Italy intervened, asserting that the incident occurred outside Indian territorial waters, and thus, Indian authorities lacked jurisdiction. They argued that the matter involved sovereign states and should be settled under international law. The Union of India and the State of Kerala refuted this, maintaining that the offense occurred within Indian jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into this jurisdictional dispute, focusing instead on the vessel's voyage.

3. Validity of Settlements Reached Between the Republic of Italy and Claimants-Plaintiffs:
Settlements were reached between the Republic of Italy and the claimants-plaintiffs, including Doramma and others, through Lok Adalat. The Government of Kerala contested these settlements, arguing they were against public policy and Indian laws. The Supreme Court clarified that it was not concerned with the correctness or legality of these settlements in the present appeal and chose to ignore them for the purpose of the appeal.

4. Conditions for Allowing the Vessel to Commence Its Voyage:
The Supreme Court imposed specific conditions for allowing the vessel to commence its voyage. The Master of the vessel, the Managing Director of the owner, and the Managing Director of the shipping agent were required to furnish undertakings to present six crew members upon summons and produce the vessel if required. Additionally, the owner had to execute a bond of Rupees Three Crores to ensure compliance.

5. Assurance for the Presence of Italian Marines Involved in the Incident:
The Republic of Italy provided an assurance to the Supreme Court that it would ensure the presence of the four Marines involved in the incident if required by any court or lawful authority. This assurance was accepted by the Court, subject to the Marines' right to challenge any summons or notice in a competent Indian court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by allowing the vessel to commence its voyage, subject to compliance with the specified conditions and assurances. The investigation into the crime was not to impede the vessel's voyage, and the Marines were permitted to sail with the vessel. The Court emphasized that the Republic of Italy's assurance protected the interests of the Government of Kerala and did not affect its right to proceed with the investigation and prosecution.

---