The Supreme Court of India recently attracted attention during a bail hearing when a petitioner claimed citizenship of Vanuatu, a small Pacific island nation. The bench, led by Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria, expressed scepticism about the claim, noting that the accused had never visited Vanuatu. In a striking observation, the court compared the claim to “Kailasa,” a self-proclaimed micronation founded by Nithyananda in 2019, which has no recognition from any country or international organisation. The comment was part of the judicial process to assess the credibility of claims, not an official statement on Vanuatu’s sovereignty. The bail petition was ultimately withdrawn and dismissed.
Vanuatu is a recognised sovereign nation in the South Pacific, comprising a chain of islands that gained independence from joint British and French colonial rule on 30 July 1980. Its first Prime Minister, Father Walter Lini, helped establish a stable democratic framework and a non-aligned foreign policy. Since independence, Vanuatu has been a member of the United Nations and the Commonwealth. India and Vanuatu have maintained diplomatic relations since 1986, with India’s representation to Vanuatu being non-resident, managed through the Indian High Commission in Wellington, New Zealand. Vanuatu does not host a significant Indian diaspora, and most interactions are limited to diplomatic and developmental cooperation.
The Supreme Court’s comparison to Kailasa drew attention because Kailasa lacks legal and international recognition, unlike Vanuatu, which has a clear sovereign status. India and Vanuatu cooperate on multiple fronts, including education, healthcare, and climate initiatives. The Vanuatu government has not issued any public reaction to the Supreme Court’s remarks, and there is no evidence that bilateral relations have been affected.
Kailasa, by contrast, is a self-proclaimed Hindu micronation, founded by Nithyananda, which operates from undisclosed locations and has no formal recognition. Its origins and legal status have been widely questioned, and it exists largely as a symbolic entity in media discourse.
The Supreme Court’s observation reflects a broader pattern of pointed judicial comments in India, where courts often challenge claims made in litigation. Past instances have included questioning exaggerated statements, dubious citizenship claims, or unverifiable international affiliations. While such remarks are intended to verify facts and prevent misuse of the judicial process, they sometimes attract public attention due to the reputations of the judges involved and the nature of the subject matter.
India’s diplomatic engagement with Vanuatu remains unaffected. Official cooperation continues through forums such as the Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC), where Vanuatu’s leadership engages with Indian counterparts. Both nations share mutual interests in regional development and climate resilience.
The episode raises a question: should the judiciary make such observations on foreign nations, even when addressing individual claims? While the remarks were fact-based and procedural, they underline the delicate balance between legal scrutiny and the perception of international relations. Observers note that judicial comments, while sometimes controversial, are aimed at ensuring accuracy in court proceedings rather than shaping foreign policy.
Kailasa and Vanuatu represent two starkly different realities: one a recognised country with active diplomacy, the other a symbolic micronation with no formal status. The Supreme Court’s remarks, while sensational in media coverage, have not impacted India’s foreign relations or its ongoing cooperation with Vanuatu.
Subscribe Deshwale on YouTube
