[The diplomat was strip searched and held with
criminals, triggering a row between the two sides with India retaliating by
downgrading privileges of certain category of US diplomats.]
NEW YORK: Senior Indian
diplomat Devyani Khobragade was indicted for visa
fraud and making false statements but can leave the US as she has been accorded
diplomatic immunity.
The charges against 39-year-old Khobragade will remain and she will have to face trial, if she returns to the US without diplomatic immunity, US attorney Preet Bharara said in a letter to District Judge Shira Scheindlin.
Bharara said the grand jury has indicted the diplomat on two counts of visa fraud and making false statements in connection with the visa application of her domestic help Sangeeta Richard.
"There will not need to be an arraignment on the Indictment scheduled at this time. We understand that the defendant was very recently accorded diplomatic immunity status," Bharara said in his letter.
"Therefore, the charges will remain pending until such time as she can be brought to court to face the charges, either through a waiver of immunity or the defendant's return to the United States in a non-immune status. The time between now and the time that she is able to be brought before the Court is excluded automatically under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(3)(A), which provides for the exclusion of any period of delay resulting from the unavailability of the defendant," he said.
When contacted, Khobragade told PTI, "I will show my immunity to the court. The court will see that I have diplomatic immunity. Only then I will leave the US."
A 1999-batch IFS officer, Khobragade, was arrested on December 12 on charges of making false declarations in a visa application for her maid. She was released on a $250,000 bond.
The diplomat was strip searched and held with criminals, triggering a row between the two sides with India retaliating by downgrading privileges of certain category of US diplomats.
"The government respectfully writes to advise the court that earlier today, the grand jury voted on and returned the enclosed Indictment charging Devyani Khobragade, the defendant, in two counts with visa fraud and making false statements in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1546, 1001, and 2," Bharara said.
"In this case, the defendant is unavailable because her 'whereabouts are known but [her] presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence or [she] resists appearing at or being returned for trial'," he said.
Bharara made it clear that Khobragade will be prosecuted if she returns to the US without diplomatic immunity.
"We will alert the Court promptly if we learn that the defendant returns to the United States in a non-immune capacity, at which time the Government will proceed to prosecute this case and prove the charges in the Indictment," he added.
After the row broke out, Khobragade was transferred to India's permanent mission to the UN. Following her arrest, her passport was kept in court's custody.
The charges against 39-year-old Khobragade will remain and she will have to face trial, if she returns to the US without diplomatic immunity, US attorney Preet Bharara said in a letter to District Judge Shira Scheindlin.
Bharara said the grand jury has indicted the diplomat on two counts of visa fraud and making false statements in connection with the visa application of her domestic help Sangeeta Richard.
"There will not need to be an arraignment on the Indictment scheduled at this time. We understand that the defendant was very recently accorded diplomatic immunity status," Bharara said in his letter.
"Therefore, the charges will remain pending until such time as she can be brought to court to face the charges, either through a waiver of immunity or the defendant's return to the United States in a non-immune status. The time between now and the time that she is able to be brought before the Court is excluded automatically under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(3)(A), which provides for the exclusion of any period of delay resulting from the unavailability of the defendant," he said.
When contacted, Khobragade told PTI, "I will show my immunity to the court. The court will see that I have diplomatic immunity. Only then I will leave the US."
A 1999-batch IFS officer, Khobragade, was arrested on December 12 on charges of making false declarations in a visa application for her maid. She was released on a $250,000 bond.
The diplomat was strip searched and held with criminals, triggering a row between the two sides with India retaliating by downgrading privileges of certain category of US diplomats.
"The government respectfully writes to advise the court that earlier today, the grand jury voted on and returned the enclosed Indictment charging Devyani Khobragade, the defendant, in two counts with visa fraud and making false statements in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1546, 1001, and 2," Bharara said.
"In this case, the defendant is unavailable because her 'whereabouts are known but [her] presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence or [she] resists appearing at or being returned for trial'," he said.
Bharara made it clear that Khobragade will be prosecuted if she returns to the US without diplomatic immunity.
"We will alert the Court promptly if we learn that the defendant returns to the United States in a non-immune capacity, at which time the Government will proceed to prosecute this case and prove the charges in the Indictment," he added.
After the row broke out, Khobragade was transferred to India's permanent mission to the UN. Following her arrest, her passport was kept in court's custody.
[Mr. Kejriwal may
have set the example, but his efforts to change officials’ attitudes toward the
privilege are likely to run into opposition from those used to the convenience
of the red beacon. One former government official, Amrish Gautam, said he found
Mr. Kejriwal’s idealism baffling, as he contended that the red beacons aren’t
just for officials’ benefit, but for the public’s as well. Mr. Gautam legally
used the red beacon while riding his car from 2008 to 2013, when he was the
deputy speaker of the Delhi Legislative Assembly.]
By Sai Manish
NEW DELHI — After Arvind Kejriwal, leader of the Aam
Aadmi Party, was sworn in as the chief minister of Delhi, one of the first
election promises he kept was to get rid of two perks he said were a hangover
from colonial times – the security motorcades that usually follow the chief
minister’s official car and the flashing red light on the car roof, also known
as a red beacon, which is used by government officials to cut through traffic.
“The red beacon was
a part of the British legacy,” he said. “The British left. But this red beacon
remains as a symbol of V.I.P. culture in India. We shall try to abolish it
wherever we can.”
In the Delhi state
government and in the central government, officials who fall into certain
high-ranking categories are allowed to use the flashing red light while on
government business. But because many junior politicians, lower-level
government officials and private citizens all over the country illegally use
the beacons to tout their importance and bypass traffic jams, the Supreme
Court ruled last
month that only “high dignitaries,” official posts mentioned in the
Constitution, were allowed to have red lights on their cars and only while on
official business.
Mr. Kejriwal may
have set the example, but his efforts to change officials’ attitudes toward the
privilege are likely to run into opposition from those used to the convenience
of the red beacon. One former government official, Amrish Gautam, said he found
Mr. Kejriwal’s idealism baffling, as he contended that the red beacons aren’t
just for officials’ benefit, but for the public’s as well. Mr. Gautam legally
used the red beacon while riding his car from 2008 to 2013, when he was the
deputy speaker of the Delhi Legislative Assembly.
“A red beacon not
just helps politicians but also the common man,” said Mr. Gautam, who lost his
bid for re-election in December to an Aam Aadmi Party candidate. “People in
Delhi are fond of creating traffic snarls. Whenever they see red beacons, they
are overcome by fear. This fear works well, and people tend to give way and
clear out the mess on the roads. If a siren rings along with the beacon, then
people are even more scared. The fear causes people to abide by the law.”
Mohan Parasaran,
the solicitor general of India, represented the Indian government in the
Supreme Court case, arguing that under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, central
and state governments, not the court, should retain the power to decide who
gets to use the red beacons. The Supreme Court agreed with him, but warned
governments to limit the scope of privileges.
“I think the
Supreme Court’s order will infuse more discipline in the use of red beacons,”
Mr. Parasan said.
Though he was
defending New Delhi’s right to allow officials to use the lights, Mr. Parasaran
said he hasn’t exercised his privilege very much since his appointment in
February 2013, choosing instead to cover up the beacon with a black cloth.
“I don’t believe in
the red beacon, and I avoid using it on the road,” he said. “But when I go to
government offices, the sight of a beacon helps me get a parking slot easily.
It gets preferential treatment in hotels and other public spaces.”
Devender Singh, the
Delhi assistant commissioner of police for traffic, said his officers are on
the lookout for the lower-ranking state-level politicians like district
secretaries and student leaders who often like to use a red beacon as they
drive through the city. “The people we catch are mostly from small towns
entering Delhi thinking they can get away with flaunting beacons illegally,” he
said.
But even if
officers fine violators, Mr. Singh said, that won’t be enough to deter future
abuse. The Supreme Court observed in its ruling that the penalty for illegally
using a red beacon, as well as for most traffic violations, is 100 rupees, less
than $2.
Obtaining a red
beacon is easy, requiring no special permit or ID checks. Many district-level
politicians from neighboring states often come to Delhi to buy red beacons from
the car accessories hubs in the city, like at Pallika Bhawan, near the United
States Embassy in southwest Delhi. Close to 200 shops in a well-organized
compound sell everything for cars – amplifiers, U.V. lights, nitrous boosts and
other performance parts. In the lower level open space, where toxic aerosol
fumes hang heavy in the air, mechanics are constantly modifying cars.
The red beacon is
available in every shop here, for 300 to 1,500 rupees apiece. Most store owners
said they are an insignificant part of their business, selling an average of
three a month; some said they won’t sell any beacons for months on end.
Shopkeepers said a brand of beacon called “Grand,” which is on the higher
end of the price range, was the most popular.
Mahinder Malik, 49,
owns one of the oldest shops in Pallika Bhawan, Friends Motors, located on the
lower level of the compound. His customers mostly include Indian government
agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and paramilitary forces like
the Indo-Tibetan Border Police. A burly man with a thick mustache, he has seen
the red beacon culture evolve in Delhi ever since he started his business 24
years ago.
“Before the
election season, the sale of red beacons increases three-fold from individuals
and nonpolitical buyers,” that is, supporters of politicians who want to use
the lights to campaign unimpeded throughout their home states, he said. “That
is a time when we also triple the price.”
As he
contemplatively sipped his tea, he added, “A lot of rich, spoiled brats from
the neighboring state of Haryana and Punjab come to buy as well. When I don’t
like someone’s attitude or find him suspicious, then I do not sell it to him.”
Though Mr. Kejriwal
and his Aam Aadmi Party have promised to root out the abuse of high privilege
in government, Mr. Malik was skeptical about the demise of the beacon culture.
“The red beacon
will always survive,” he said. “No court can do anything. Look at the wives and
kids of the judges who give such orders. They drive around all the time with
the flashing beacons. The police cannot even dare to stop them.”
Sai Manish is a
freelance journalist based in New Delhi.
