Sunday, March 24, 2013

It is our boat, Our courts--Opinion > The Hindu

In this article the author Mr.V.S.Mani has argued that India has authority to try the case. To support his arguments he has quoted the relevant sections of the Indian and International laws.
1.He argues that Article 297 of the Constitution of India does not refer to a 'Contiguous zone'. That does not mean that contiguous zone does not exist but only that it has not been named so. The main zone beyond territorial waters of a coastal state is the EEZ extending up to 200 nautical miles from the base line on the shore. It is this Exclusive Economic Zone which is subdivided into 1.Territorial waters where all the laws of the land applies 2. The contiguous zone between 12 and 24 N.M from the base line where only security, customs, immigration and pollution laws of the country applies and beyond that zone where India has exclusive rights to the mineral and other wealth in the sea bed. It is not proper to read that Exclusive Economic Zone as lying beyond Territorial waters. Even territorial waters is part of the EEZ but since it is already termed as territorial waters it need not be stressed. That is all.

2.It is argued that the Central Government may enact a law and notify in the Gazette. But I think that it is mentioned that any such laws should confirm to the International law. India is a signatory to the UNCLOS which has specified that the criminal laws of the coastal state will be applicable only in territorial waters. So India cannot extend its criminal laws to contiguous zone without the concurrence of the UN authority or should inform of its decision to with draw from the UNCLOS agreement.

3.It is argued that UNCLOS mentions only navigational incidents to be tried by the flag state. Criminal activities are not included. If criminal activities does not come as per the UNCLOS under flag ship rule it does not mean that it is something any of the parties can try. If there is a lacunae in the law it should be rectified by an international authority. This was a right occasion to decide in cases like this where two countries are involved which country should have the right to try the case. Had this happened in one ship laws are clear. Unfortunately the crime started in Italy and ended in India. So which country should try. Here only the author has some point. In US in one case a person send some poison from one state to another in another state. The victim died in the second state and the perpetrator was tried in the victims state. That way India has right to try the case. But does a boat without any specific flag constitute legally as a part of India?

No comments:

Post a Comment