‘No Country Like That’: Supreme Court On Vanuatu Claim

The Supreme Court said “there is no country like that” while hearing a bail plea of a man who claimed to be a citizen of Vanuatu. The bench even compared it to Kailasa, the self-proclaimed micronation linked to Nithyananda. The remark came during a hearing in a cheating case after the Calcutta High Court had refused him bail.

What Happened In The Supreme Court?

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria was hearing the matter. The accused had challenged the Calcutta High Court’s decision denying him bail. His lawyer told the court that he had already spent nearly one year and three months in jail.

The judges asked a simple question. Which country are you a citizen of?

The lawyer replied that his client held citizenship of Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation.

Then came the sharp exchange. The bench asked if the accused had ever been there. The answer was no. That raised eyebrows instantly.

One of the judges remarked that there is no country like that, adding they also know of a country called Kailasa. The tone was clearly skeptical.

Why Did The Court Mention Kailasa?

Kailasa is a self-proclaimed Hindu micronation announced in 2019 by fugitive godman Nithyananda. It has no official international recognition. Still, it often appears in headlines for unusual diplomatic claims.

By comparing Vanuatu citizenship claim to Kailasa, the bench signaled doubt. It suggested that the court was not convinced by the foreign citizenship argument.

It was a rare and striking comment inside a courtroom.

Is Vanuatu A Real Country?

Yes, Vanuatu is a real island nation in the South Pacific Ocean. It runs a citizenship-by-investment programme. Many foreigners apply for Vanuatu passports under legal schemes.

However, in court matters, citizenship claims must be properly verified. Just saying you hold a passport is not enough. Documents and travel history matter.

When the bench asked whether the accused had even visited Vanuatu and the answer was no, suspicion increased.

What Was The Case About?

The man is accused in a cheating case. The Calcutta High Court had earlier refused to grant him bail. So he moved to the Supreme Court.

His lawyer argued that he had already received bail in four other cases. He requested relief from continued custody.

The judges then asked the West Bengal government counsel how long the trial would take. The state’s lawyer replied that it could conclude within six to eight months.

That timeline played a role in what happened next.

Why Was The Petition Withdrawn?

After hearing the court’s observations and the likely trial duration, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the plea.

The bench agreed. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

So technically, the Supreme Court did not pass a final order on bail. The petition simply ended there.

Why Citizenship Matters In Bail Cases

Foreign citizenship can affect how courts view flight risk. If someone holds another passport, the court may worry about them leaving the country.

In such cases, judges examine travel history, immigration status and authenticity of documents. Courts need solid proof.

That is why the bench’s questions were direct and sharp. They were testing credibility.

Public Reaction And Legal Significance

The courtroom remark quickly grabbed attention. Comparing a citizenship claim to Kailasa sounded almost humorous, yet it carried serious undertones.

It showed that the judiciary is cautious about unusual claims. Especially when they appear in criminal matters.

Legal experts say that while Vanuatu is a recognised country, any claim must be backed by strong evidence. Courts will not accept vague statements.

What Happens Next?

Since the petition was withdrawn, the accused will continue under the existing trial process. The state had indicated that proceedings may conclude within six to eight months.

If circumstances change, the accused can approach the court again. That option always remains open.

For now, the Supreme Court’s brief but sharp comment remains the headline.

Final Word On The Case

The Supreme Court questioned the credibility of a Vanuatu citizenship claim during a bail hearing in a cheating case. The bench compared it to Kailasa, signaling doubt about the argument. The petition was later dismissed as withdrawn, and the trial is expected to continue.

It was a short hearing. Yet it left a strong impression. Sometimes a single courtroom remark says more than pages of legal argument.