The Delhi High court has held that United Nations Organization is not ‘State’ in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is thus not amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction..The judgment was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in a petition concerning the immunity enjoyed by the UNO under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947..The petitioner was a former UNO employee who was found guilty of misconduct pursuant to the findings of a Procurement Task Force. The Petitioner also faced trial in the United States and was sentenced to 97 months of imprisonment, two years of mandatory probation apart from other monetary fines..After serving his sentence, the petitioner was deported to India..Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, seeking a grant of permission to initiate legal action against the UNO in terms of section 86 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908..The Ministry stated that the consent of the Government of India was not required to initiate a legal suit against UNO as it was not a foreign State and was only an International Organization. It, however, added that UNO and its officials enjoyed immunity under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947..The same became the subject matter of the petition filed before the High Court..The petitioner argued that the court had jurisdiction to issue any direction as it deems fit to ensure that the wrongs done by the UNO were corrected. The petitioner submitted that the UNO violated its own Staff Rules and Section 18(a) of Article V of the Schedule to the Act while dealing with his case..It was, therefore, contended that the UNO, by its acts and omissions, violated the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India and also its own objectives as envisaged in the Charter of the United Nations..The petitioner further submitted that no immunity was or could be infallible or absolute under all circumstances..Additionally, the petitioner also claimed that the immunity granted to the UNO and its officials under the Act would not come in the way of the present petition as the Petitioner was an employee of the UNO and was not even seeking any remedy which would require invoking the immunity..The petitioner also relied on the latin maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium to argue that he could not be left remediless..The Centre, on the other hand, stuck to its stand that the UNO had immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as any particular case where it has expressly waived its immunity..After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as any particular case wherein it has expressly waived its immunity..Nonetheless, no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure of execution, it added..Coming to the present case, the Court said that a case under Article 226 jurisdiction lies only when a petitioner establishes that his or her fundamental right or some other legal right has been infringed..The same would, however, not be maintainable unless the respondent is a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it said..Relying on a decision of the High Court in Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union (Regd) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors (2000), the Court recorded that an organisation of the United Nations which is an international body could not be treated as an instrumentality or an agency of the Government..It thus decreed that the UNO could not be considered as State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution and thus the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable..“I am of the considered opinion that United Nations is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33. Thus the present petition is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.“.The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate RS Suri with Advocates Akshay Kapoor, Varun Khanna and Kriti Chopra..Centre was represented by Standing Counsel Anurag Ahluwalia with Advocate Sidhant Kumar..Read the Judgement:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.