Barapind v. Government of the Republic of India, No. 14-16983 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, an Indian citizen and a Sikh, sought relief from extradition pursuant to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Plaintiff argued that the United States would violate 22 C.F.R. 95.2(b) if it extradited plaintiff to India because he would “more likely than not” be tortured there, that diplomatic assurances would be insufficient to guarantee that he would not be tortured, and that he would be denied a fair trial in India. The Department and the Indian government exchanged a series of diplomatic notes and, in those notes (“the Understanding”), the Indian government stated that plaintiff would not be tortured. The Department then surrendered plaintiff to the Indian government where he was arrested and subjected to torture. Plaintiff filed suit arguing that the Indian government violated the Understanding when it subjected him to post-extradition torture. The district court dismissed the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim because the Indian Government did not waive their sovereign immunity through their diplomatic communications with the United States. The court explained that the Understanding is not an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity by the Indian government. Not only does the Understanding not match any of the three circumstances that ordinarily give rise to an implied waiver, but it also does not demonstrate that India intended the Understanding to be enforceable in United States courts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Foreign Sovereign Immunity. Affirming the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of an action brought against the Government of the Republic of India, the State Government of Punjab, and the Punjab Police, the panel held that the defendants did not waive their sovereign immunity through their diplomatic communications with the United States. The plaintiff alleged that by subjecting him to post- extradition torture, the Indian government violated an understanding with the United States Department of State. The panel held that this understanding was not an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity by the Indian government. The panel concluded that none of the three circumstances that ordinarily give rise to an implied waiver was present. The understanding was not an agreement to arbitration in the United States; it was not a responsive pleading that failed to raise the defense of sovereign immunity; and there was no choice-of-law agreement. In addition, the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving that the Indian government contemplated the involvement of the courts of the United States. BARAPIND V. GOV’T OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.