New Delhi: In a judgement that has far-reaching implications about diplomatic immunity and jurisdiction, an Australian federal court gave an ex-parte order asking India’s former high commissioner to Canberra to pay A$136,000 to a former domestic help for compensating her as per Australian standards.
According to a report by ABC News, Seema Sherghill arrived in Australia in April 2015, and spent about a year working at the high commissioner Navdeep Singh Suri’s official residence. She left the house in May 2016 and was granted Australian citizenship in 2021.
Neither the MEA or Suri, who had retired in 2019, took part in the court proceedings in Australia. There is no public statement from the Ministry, so far.
The single bench of Justice Elizabeth Draper observed, as per ABC News, that the “employment conditions bore no resemblance to what one would expect under Australian law”.
“Her passport was taken from her, she worked seven days a week, was never permitted to take leave and was only allowed outside the house for brief periods a day when looking after Mr Suri’s dog.”
The Judge also ruled that the Indian diplomat was ineligible to claim foreign state immunity, because Shergill did not work for the High Commission itself, nor diplomatic immunity, as the engagement of a domestic worker was not an official function of his position. She ordered Suri to pay Sherghill more than A$136,000 plus interest, within 60 days.
Shergill had earlier worked with Suri when he had been the Indian ambassador to Australia. She had travelled to Australia on an official passport with a diplomatic visa.
Devyani Khobragade
In December 2013, an Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade was strip-searched by US security officials on claims by her domestic help that she had not given her adequate compensation. It had led to relations between US and India nose-diving into a sudden crisis, before she finally flew back to India.
The MEA subsequently modified the system of India-based domestic assistants, who were no longer considered ‘personal helps’ but were employed by the Indian government.
As per sources, Shergill refused to sign an undertaking in May 2016 that was required from staff at all Indian diplomatic missions that they would return to India at the end of their three-year tenure. This was a new provision that was introduced in the aftermath of the post-Khobragade affair.
Since refusal to sign the undertaking meant cancellation of her contract and return to India, she was reportedly given several cautionary messages by the embassy officials. When she again refused, a ticket was bought by the High Commission for a flight to Delhi on May 27, 2016.
A day before her flight, she left the premises of the official residence, following which the Indian High Commission filed a ‘missing person’ complaint with the Australian Federal Police, as per informed sources.
ABC News quoted Shergill as stating that she was “responsible for doing everything” at the residence, known as India House.
“When he and his wife were away, instead of my usual chores, Mr Suri or his wife usually would ask me to make large batches of samosas and freeze them, or to clean the silverware,” she said.
She claimed to have worked seven days a week for 17.5 hours per day, with her official duties being cleaning the house, preparing meals and tidying the garden.
While Shergill claimed that she was not allowed to leave the house except to walk the dog, Indian sources claimed that she had remote access to the main gate to allow entry and exit of visitors.
Implications
Sources pointed out that the court judgment was based on the premise that Seema Shergill was employed in a private capacity in non-diplomatic household, which was inaccurate. They pointed out that she travelled on an official passport and that the Australian government had given her a diplomatic visa and identity card to show that she was in service at the High Commission of India.
Indian sources claimed that India-based diplomats and staff are paid salaries as per Indian scales and that this judgement was seemingly in violation of the Vienna Conventions of Diplomatic and Consular Relations. There was also concern, according to Indian sources, that the order would lead to service staff in Indian missions abroad to also seek compensation as per the local laws, as well as encourage others to take the path towards citizenship.