Disposed

Aleema v. Dr.S. Jayasankar

Kerala HC11 Aug 2017Con.Case(C)/1263/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt proceedings, the Court expressed empathy for a mother worried about her daughter employed in Saudi Arabia via unauthorized channels. The Court directed the Consulate to safeguard the citizen's interests upon contract expiry but found prima facie no contempt.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; no further commitment made by Consulate for return except upon contract expiry; proceedings closed.

Aleema Vs Dr.S. Jayasankar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/20TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

Con. Case(C). No.1263 of 2017 (S) IN WP(Crl.).198/2016 ---------------------------(JUDGMENT IN W.P.(Crl.) NO. 198/2016 DATED 06-01-2017.)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

ALEEMA, AGED 58, W/O. LATE SIDIQUE, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLAR P.O., PAMPANAR, PEERMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI. T. A. UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.5:

¶10

DR. S. JAYASANKAR,

¶11

(AGE AND NAME OF FATHER IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI. N. NAGARESH, A.S.G. SRI. SUVIN R. MENON, CGC

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Con. Case(C). No.1263 of 2017 (S)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶17

ANNEX.-I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.01.2017 IN W.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.198/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶18

ANNEX.-II: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 09.03.2017 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 10.03.2017.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. &

¶24

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶25

- - - - Cont. Case (C). No. 1263 of 2017

¶26

- - - - Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2017

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶29

This application is by a helpless mother for return of her daughter, who had gone to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for a job, but through unauthorised channel. It is not the case of the petitioner that the girl in question was abducted or coerced or lured wrongly. She had herself volunteered to go consciously avoiding authorised channel. Having gone there, it appears, she is not happy and according to the mother, she calls her frequently and laments that she is being subjected to hardship. Her prayer is that she be brought back to India.

¶30

We asked learned counsel for the Union of India whether something could be done. He submitted that Government of India repeatedly is warning the people, who were seeking employment outside India, to go through authorised channels so that, in case of emergency, matters can be handled. But, if Indian citizens, lured by money, violate the instructions, they do so at their own risks. The

¶31

Cont. Case (C): 1263/17 -:2:-

¶32

consequence is that if help is sought from the Indian Embassy/Consulate, it cannot be provided for various reasons which include the absence of contact with the person and lack of access with the sponsor, who is likely to be a citizen of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Indian Consul, however, has indicated that as soon as the present contract of employment of the petitioner's daughter with her sponsor ends on 31.08.2017, they would ensure that it is not renewed for a further period. In that event, they would also ensure that Smt.Shemiya is brought back to India, if she so wants. No further commitment can be made in the facts and circumstances, is the submission.

¶33

We realise the helplessness of the situation that the mother faces. We expect the Indian Consulate to take appropriate steps to safeguard the interest of an Indian, who has gone out of her own volition, violating the norms set by the Government of India. Even if she has committed a wrong, in the manner in which she went, she does not cease to be an Indian citizen and hence, her safety is the responsibility of Government of India. They have to ensure that she is not held in Saudi Arabia against her wishes. We may indicate that Consulate is also aware of the details of the person who had

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

Cont. Case (C): 1263/17

¶36

facilitated the employment abroad. That person appears to be a distant relative of the petitioner's daughter and works in the same household as a driver.

¶37

With the hope that no harm is caused to the daughter of the petitioner, we close this contempt proceedings as, prima facie ,

¶38

no contempt is made out.

¶39

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶40

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶41

krj.11/8

Aleema v. Dr.S. Jayasankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aleema v. Dr.S. Jayasankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Biju Vs T.K.Jose

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Salim S.H

Chief of Army Staff Vs v.Tulsi Nair

T.M.Sebastian Vs Noufal a, Sub Inspector of Police

Suji v. Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakash

Baiju.Y.P Vs Union of India