India–Canada diplomatic Crisis: Understanding the Vienna Convention Framework in the Nijjar Murder Case

Introduction

The diplomatic crisis between India and Canada that erupted in September 2023 represents one of the most significant bilateral tensions in recent history, testing the boundaries of international diplomatic law and challenging the fundamental principles enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The catalyst for this unprecedented diplomatic rupture was the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian Sikh separatist leader, who was gunned down outside a gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia, on June 18, 2023. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s subsequent allegation that credible intelligence linked Indian government agents to this killing sent shockwaves through the international community and triggered a cascade of diplomatic actions that continue to reverberate today.

The crisis escalated dramatically in October 2024 when Canadian authorities expelled six Indian diplomats, including High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma, after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police identified them as persons of interest in the Nijjar murder investigation. India swiftly retaliated with mirror expulsions of Canadian diplomats, marking a complete breakdown in diplomatic relations between two Commonwealth nations. This unprecedented situation has brought into sharp focus the delicate balance between diplomatic immunity and criminal accountability under international law.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: Legal Framework

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted on April 18, 1961, and entering into force on April 24, 1964, stands as the cornerstone treaty governing diplomatic interactions between sovereign nations [1]. The Convention codifies centuries of customary international law and has achieved near-universal acceptance, with 193 state parties including both India and Canada. The treaty’s fundamental purpose, as stated in its preamble, is to facilitate the development of friendly relations among nations through a uniform set of practices and principles that protect diplomatic missions and personnel from coercion or harassment by host countries.

The Convention’s core principles rest on two foundational concepts: the inviolability of diplomatic premises and the immunity of diplomatic agents. Article 22 of the Convention establishes that “the premises of a diplomatic mission are inviolable” and that “the agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.” This provision extends protection not only to the mission’s buildings but also to their furnishings, property, and means of transport. The receiving state bears an affirmative duty to protect the mission from intrusion or damage, creating what international law scholars describe as a sanctuary that operates beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the host nation.

Article 29 complements these protections by declaring that “the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable” and that diplomatic agents “shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.” The receiving state must treat diplomatic agents with respect and take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom, or dignity. This personal inviolability extends through Article 30 to the private residences of diplomatic agents, whose papers, correspondence, and property are similarly protected from search, requisition, attachment, or execution.

The Convention, however, also establishes critical limitations and obligations. Article 41 requires that diplomatic personnel respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state and have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that state. This reciprocal obligation forms the theoretical foundation for the diplomatic relationship, creating a delicate balance between protection and accountability that lies at the heart of the India-Canada dispute.

Article 9 and the Persona Non Grata Mechanism

At the center of the diplomatic crisis between India and Canada lies Article 9 of the Vienna Convention, which provides the receiving state with a powerful discretionary tool for managing unwanted diplomatic personnel [2]. The article states unequivocally that “the receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision inform the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable.”

This provision grants receiving states absolute discretion to declare diplomats unwelcome without providing justification or evidence. Once such a declaration is made, the sending state must either recall the person concerned or terminate their functions with the mission within a reasonable period. If the sending state refuses or fails to carry out this obligation, the receiving state may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission, effectively stripping them of diplomatic protection. The article further specifies that a person may be declared persona non grata even before arriving in the territory of the receiving state, providing a preventive mechanism against potentially problematic diplomatic appointments.

Canada invoked this provision in October 2024 when it declared six Indian diplomats persona non grata following the RCMP’s investigation. Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly stated that “the decision to expel these individuals was made with great consideration and only after the RCMP gathered ample, clear and concrete evidence which identified six individuals as persons of interest in the Nijjar case” [3]. The unprecedented nature of this action lay not in the invocation of Article 9 itself, which is relatively common in diplomatic practice, but in the public disclosure of the criminal investigation underlying the expulsion and the explicit allegation of involvement in serious criminal activity including murder, extortion, and coercion.

India’s response was swift and emphatic. The Ministry of External Affairs rejected what it termed “preposterous imputations” and announced reciprocal expulsions of six Canadian diplomats, including acting High Commissioner Stewart Ross Wheeler. India characterized Canada’s actions as a “deliberate strategy of smearing India for political gains” and accused the Trudeau government of failing to provide any evidence despite numerous requests since September 2023.

Diplomatic Immunity and Criminal Investigation

The most contentious aspect of the India-Canada crisis involves the intersection of diplomatic immunity and criminal accountability. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention grants diplomatic agents immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state, creating what appears to be an insurmountable barrier to prosecution for alleged crimes [4]. However, this immunity is not absolute and exists within a framework that contemplates exceptions and remedies.

The Convention explicitly provides in Article 32 that the sending state may waive diplomatic immunity, allowing prosecution to proceed in the receiving state. Canadian officials requested that India waive immunity for the six expelled diplomats to permit their cooperation with the RCMP investigation into the Nijjar murder. India refused this request, maintaining its position that Canada had not provided sufficient evidence to warrant such unprecedented action and that the allegations were politically motivated rather than grounded in credible intelligence.

The refusal to waive immunity left Canada with limited options under international law. The persona non grata mechanism remains the primary remedy available to receiving states when faced with alleged criminal conduct by diplomatic personnel. While this results in the diplomat’s expulsion, it does not permit prosecution in the receiving state, as the diplomat retains immunity even after expulsion until they depart the country. The expelled diplomats returned to India, where they would theoretically remain subject to Indian jurisdiction for any crimes committed abroad, though as a practical matter, India has shown no inclination to investigate or prosecute its own officials for actions that it categorically denies occurred.

This creates what legal scholars term an “accountability gap” in international diplomatic law. When the sending state refuses to waive immunity and declines to prosecute upon the diplomat’s return, victims of alleged crimes by diplomatic personnel may find themselves without any legal remedy. Canadian victims and their families could theoretically pursue civil cases against the expelled diplomats in Indian courts, but such proceedings face numerous practical obstacles including jurisdictional challenges, the lengthy nature of international litigation, and the political sensitivity of cases involving government officials.

Article 11 and the Principle of Parity

A parallel controversy in the India-Canada dispute concerns the principle of diplomatic parity, which is addressed in Article 11 of the Vienna Convention [5]. This provision states that “in the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission.”

In October 2023, preceding the 2024 expulsions, India invoked Article 11 to demand that Canada reduce its diplomatic presence in India from 62 to 21 personnel. India threatened to unilaterally revoke diplomatic immunity for Canadian diplomats who remained beyond the deadline, prompting Canada to withdraw 41 diplomats and 42 family members from the country. Canada vigorously protested this action, with Foreign Minister Joly declaring that “a unilateral revocation of diplomatic privileges and immunities is contrary to international law, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations” [6].

The legal debate centered on whether Article 11 permits a receiving state to set strict numerical limits on mission size and enforce those limits by threatening to withdraw immunity. India’s Ministry of External Affairs justified its position by arguing that “the much higher number of Canadian diplomats in India, and their continued interference in our internal affairs necessitates a parity in mutual diplomatic presence.” Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar elaborated on this position, stating that “parity is very much provided for by the Vienna Convention” and that India invoked this principle due to concerns about continuous interference by Canadian personnel in Indian internal affairs.

Legal experts remain divided on whether India’s actions complied with the Vienna Convention. While Article 11 clearly grants receiving states discretion to regulate mission size, the Convention does not explicitly authorize the unilateral withdrawal of immunity as an enforcement mechanism. The text of Article 11 contemplates that the sending state will comply with reasonable requests to adjust mission size, but it does not address what remedies are available if the sending state refuses. Canada argued that threatening to strip diplomats of immunity violated the Convention’s fundamental protections and created a dangerous precedent that could endanger diplomatic personnel worldwide.

The RCMP Investigation and Public Disclosure

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s public disclosure of its investigation findings in October 2024 represented an extraordinary departure from normal diplomatic practice. RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme stated that the investigation had “successfully investigated and charged a significant number of individuals for their direct involvement in homicides, extortions and other criminal acts of violence” and that evidence demonstrated Indian government agents were “directly involved in gathering detailed intelligence on Sikh separatists who were then killed, attacked or threatened by India’s criminal proxies.”

The RCMP’s revelations extended far beyond the Nijjar case. Canadian officials disclosed evidence of Indian government involvement in more than a dozen violent incidents across Canada, including home invasions, drive-by shootings, arson, and two homicides: Nijjar’s killing and the September 2023 shooting of Sukhdool Singh in Winnipeg. The police described a pattern in which Indian diplomats allegedly collected intelligence through clandestine methods, which was then passed to Indian government officials who directed criminal organizations, particularly the gang network of Lawrence Bishnoi, to carry out violent acts against perceived enemies of the Indian state.

This level of public disclosure is highly unusual in diplomatic disputes. Traditionally, receiving states avoid publicizing the specific reasons for declaring diplomats persona non grata, as Article 9 explicitly permits expulsions “without having to explain its decision.” Canada’s decision to make its evidence public reflected both domestic political pressures and a calculation that transparency was necessary to justify the unprecedented step of expelling six diplomats simultaneously, including a sitting high commissioner.

International Reactions and Precedents

The international community’s response to the India-Canada crisis has been notably cautious, reflecting the complexity of the legal and diplomatic issues involved. The United States, while expressing concern about the allegations, has carefully distinguished its response from Canada’s approach. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller stated that the U.S. “wanted to see the government of India cooperate with Canada in its investigation” but noted that “obviously, they have not chosen that path” [7].

The contrast between U.S. and Canadian approaches is particularly striking given that the U.S. Department of Justice has simultaneously pursued charges against Indian nationals for an alleged plot to assassinate Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on American soil. The U.S. charged Nikhil Gupta with murder-for-hire and money laundering in connection with this plot, and federal prosecutors allege that an Indian government employee directed the assassination attempt. However, the U.S. has handled this matter primarily through its justice system rather than through public diplomatic confrontation, and India has responded more cooperatively to American inquiries than to Canadian accusations.

The United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office expressed disagreement with India’s decisions regarding Canadian diplomats and encouraged India to engage with Canada’s investigation. New Zealand and Australia issued measured statements expressing concern while urging continued dialogue between the parties. These responses reflect the broader international community’s reluctance to definitively take sides in a dispute that implicates fundamental questions about diplomatic immunity, state sovereignty, and the limits of extraterritorial enforcement.

Historical precedents for the current crisis are relatively limited. The 1979-1981 Iran hostage crisis, in which Iranian militants seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days, represented the most dramatic violation of diplomatic immunity in modern history. The International Court of Justice ruled decisively that Iran had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention by failing to protect the embassy and by supporting the hostage-takers. However, the ICJ’s ruling had little immediate practical effect, demonstrating the limitations of international law when states are willing to defy it.

More recent cases, such as the 2018 poisoning of former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal in the United Kingdom, have seen states use the persona non grata mechanism extensively. The UK expelled 23 Russian diplomats in response to the attack, and numerous allied countries took coordinated action, resulting in the expulsion of over 150 Russian diplomats worldwide. Russia retaliated with reciprocal expulsions, but the coordinated international response demonstrated that widespread use of Article 9 can impose meaningful costs on states believed to have violated diplomatic norms, even when criminal prosecution is impossible.

The Khalistan Movement Context

The underlying political context of the India-Canada dispute centers on the Khalistan movement, which advocates for the creation of an independent Sikh state in India’s Punjab region. This movement has historical roots in the violent insurgency of the 1980s and 1990s, during which thousands died in clashes between militants and Indian security forces. While the movement has little active support within India today, it maintains a presence among some members of the Sikh diaspora, particularly in Canada, which is home to nearly 800,000 Sikhs, the largest population outside of India.

Hardeep Singh Nijjar was a prominent figure in the diaspora Khalistan movement. India designated him as a terrorist in July 2020, accusing him of involvement in training terrorists, organizing terror networks, and conspiring to murder a Hindu priest in Punjab. The National Investigation Agency of India had declared a reward of approximately $12,000 for information leading to his arrest. Nijjar denied these allegations and maintained that he was a peaceful advocate for Sikh self-determination protected by Canadian free speech laws.

India has long accused Canada of being too permissive toward Khalistan activists, whom New Delhi views as a serious national security threat. Indian officials argue that Canada’s multicultural policies and political considerations have led successive Canadian governments to tolerate and even tacitly support individuals and organizations that India considers terrorist entities. This frustration boiled over in the aftermath of Trudeau’s September 2023 allegations, with the Indian government accusing the prime minister of pandering to Sikh separatists to secure their votes in Canadian elections.

Legal Analysis and Future Implications

The India-Canada diplomatic crisis exposes fundamental tensions within the Vienna Convention framework that the treaty’s drafters never fully resolved. The Convention establishes diplomatic immunity as nearly absolute while simultaneously requiring diplomats to respect local laws and refrain from interfering in the receiving state’s internal affairs. When these principles collide, as in cases of alleged serious criminal conduct by diplomatic personnel, the Convention provides limited remedies beyond expulsion.

The Convention’s Article 41 obligation that diplomats “respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State” and “have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State” appears to contemplate that immunity may not shield all conduct. However, the Convention does not establish exceptions to immunity for violations of these obligations, leaving receiving states with only the blunt instrument of expulsion. Some legal scholars have argued that serious human rights violations or crimes against humanity should not be protected by diplomatic immunity, but this position has not achieved widespread acceptance in state practice or international jurisprudence.

The practical challenge for Canada lies in the difficulty of pursuing justice when the sending state refuses cooperation. While the Vienna Convention envisions that sending states will exercise their own jurisdiction over diplomats who commit crimes abroad, this occurs primarily when the sending state itself is embarrassed by the diplomat’s conduct and wishes to demonstrate accountability. When the sending state denies that any wrongdoing occurred and views allegations as politically motivated attacks on its sovereignty, the prospect of domestic prosecution becomes virtually nonexistent.

Canada could theoretically seek remedies through international adjudication, potentially bringing a case before the International Court of Justice for violations of the Vienna Convention. However, such proceedings require both parties’ consent to the court’s jurisdiction, and India has not made a declaration accepting ICJ compulsory jurisdiction over Vienna Convention disputes. Without Indian consent, no judicial forum exists to authoritatively resolve the legal questions at issue.

The India–Canada diplomatic crisis has implications that extend well beyond bilateral relations between India and Canada. It raises questions about whether the Vienna Convention adequately addresses the challenges of contemporary international relations, where states have been accused of increasingly brazen extraterritorial activities including assassination, intimidation, and coercion of diaspora communities. The concept of transnational repression, whereby authoritarian regimes reach across borders to silence critics, has gained prominence in recent years, with China, Russia, Iran, and now allegedly India engaging in such activities.

Conclusion

The India-Canada diplomatic tensions stemming from the Nijjar murder case has tested the limits of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in ways that reveal both the treaty’s enduring importance and its inherent limitations. The Convention successfully provides clear rules for managing diplomatic relations under normal circumstances, but it struggles to adequately address situations where receiving states allege that diplomatic personnel have engaged in serious criminal activity and sending states categorically refuse to cooperate with investigations or waive immunity.

Both countries have invoked provisions of the Vienna Convention to justify their actions. Canada has relied on Article 9 to expel diplomats it identified as persons of interest in criminal investigations, while India has invoked Article 11 to demand parity in diplomatic presence and has characterized Canada’s actions as violations of diplomatic immunity protections. The international community’s measured response reflects the complexity of adjudicating between these competing claims and the precedent-setting nature of the dispute.

The practical outcome has been a near-complete rupture in bilateral relations, with minimal diplomatic presence remaining in both capitals and trade negotiations frozen indefinitely. The four individuals arrested by Canadian police in connection with Nijjar’s murder await trial, but the question of their alleged connections to Indian government officials remains unresolved. Unless India agrees to cooperate with Canadian investigators or Canada obtains compelling evidence that can be publicly demonstrated, the fundamental questions of state responsibility for the assassination may never be definitively answered.

The case underscores the enduring tension in international law between state sovereignty, diplomatic immunity, and accountability for alleged crimes. As states increasingly engage in extraterritorial activities targeting diaspora communities and dissidents, the international community faces growing pressure to reconsider whether the Vienna Convention’s framework, drafted in an earlier era, adequately serves contemporary needs. Until such reform occurs, if it ever does, the blunt mechanism of diplomatic expulsion will remain the primary tool available to states seeking to respond to alleged diplomatic abuse, with all the limitations and frustrations that this entails.

References

[1] United Nations Treaty Collection. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf 

[2] Wikipedia. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations 

[3] CNN. (2024). Canada expels Indian diplomats after tying government agents to ‘serious criminal activity’. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/14/americas/canada-expels-indian-diplomats-intl-latam/index.html 

[4] JURIST. (2024). Explainer: What is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Available at: https://www.jurist.org/features/2024/04/09/explainer-what-is-the-vienna-convention-on-diplomatic-relations-and-how-does-it-relate-to-the-mexico-ecuador-incident/ 

[5] The Print. (2023). Diplomatic row has India & Canada invoking Vienna Convention. Available at: https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/diplomatic-row-has-india-canada-invoking-vienna-convention-all-about-key-international-agreement/1816305/ 

[6] Government of Canada. (2023). Statement on expulsion of Canadian diplomats by the Government of India. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2023/10/statement-on-expulsion-of-canadian-diplomats-by-the-government-of-india.html 

[7] Business Standard. (2024). India not cooperating with Canada on Nijjar killing investigations: US. Available at: https://www.business-standard.com/external-affairs-defence-security/news/india-not-cooperating-with-canada-on-nijjar-killing-investigations-us-124101600039_1.html 

[8] Wikipedia. Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar 

[9] Wikipedia. Canada–India diplomatic row. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–India_diplomatic_row 

Published and Authorized by Rutvik Desai