Today, during an urgent hearing, the Delhi High Court sought the response of the Union of India regarding the grant of permission for the Petitioner and other adult family members to travel to Yemen to initiate negotiations for 'blood money' with the family of a Yemeni national who was allegedly murdered by the Petitioner's daughter. Petitioner's daughter Nimisha Priya, a nurse from Kerala is currently lodged in a prison in Yemen.

Yesterday, the Ministry of External Affairs communicated to the Petitioner, advising against her travel to Yemen due to the current situation there. The MEA declined to grant permission and strongly recommended that the Petitioner should refrain from travelling to Yemen at this time. They urged the Petitioner to reconsider her decision to go to Yemen in light of the prevailing circumstances. Challenging the same, the Petitioner-mother approached the High Court today.

In the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 it is submitted that the objective of the 'Blood Money' negotiations is to prevent the execution of the death penalty imposed on the petitioner's daughter in Yemen. The Petitioner-mother submits that Blood Money negotiation is the only way for her daughter to escape from the death penalty by gaining pardon from the family of the deceased in accordance with the law in Yemen (Shariah Law).

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, directed the senior panel counsel for the Union of India, Advocate Pavan Narang, to obtain instructions from the Government of India and the Ministry of External Affairs regarding the possibility of allowing the Petitioner to travel to Yemen or the nearest country at their own risk to negotiate with the victim's family to secure the safety of their daughter. However, the Court indicated that it is not inclined to permit the 10-year-old daughter of Nimisha Priya to travel to Yemen, citing potential risks.

Counsel for the Centre at the outset informed the Court, "This was earlier disposed of in March 2022. They also went in the LPA against it. It was categorically stated that as a Government we can't enter into negotiations for any blood money to be paid to the victim's family. We said we would provide all legal help which was done. We have appointed an Advocate to look after her case." The Counsel accordingly sought time from the Court to take further instructions. "I would take instructions and then milords may have the matter on Monday at 2:00 PM", submitted the Counsel.

Considering the inability of the Government to enter into negotiations, Justice Arora posed a question to the Petitioner, she asked, "So they seem to have a difficulty in entering into negotiations and are also advising you not to travel because they feel you are not safe and they will not be able to protect you. Do you want to travel against their advice at your own risk?"

"The only issue is somebody should negotiate", answered Advocate Sapan Tomar for the Petitioner. The Court further remarked, "Listen to the question, the prayer A is that you want to go. They are saying we are advising you not to go as it's risky there. Do you want him to take instructions that you may be permitted to go against their advice at your own risk?"

Tomar further clarified, "There is a Consulate in Yemen. So we are asking, let them do the negotiation and we are ready to pay. There is an option of blood money and we are ready to pay, we are not asking the government of India for a single penny, but someone should negotiate and if they are not ready then let her mother has to go and do it because someone has to do it."

"Do you have any flights between India and Yemen?" asked the Court. Union's counsel Narang submitted, "No. My instructions are, that we are operating a consular embassy from Djibouti which is not in Yemen. We have moved everything out since the regime changed and we have no connection with the present regime."

The Court accordingly stated, "I will put it for Monday at 2 pm but you also take instructions that if the petitioner is willing to travel to the nearest country at her own risk then will you permit her to travel or not? She will do it at her own risk and she doesn't need your help. If she wants to do that, you take instructions, so you are able to answer this Court on Monday."

Further, objecting to the number of persons seeking permission to travel, Narang submitted, "It is very easy to say for my learned friend that they will go at their own risk. What is happening is VISA is being sought for an old lady and a 10-year-old daughter, if any untoward incident happens then who will be responsible?".

To that, Justice Arora replied, "Don't give it to the 10-year-old, they have asked for VISA for 4 people. Out of them are 2 other able and young persons." The Court further stated to the Petitioner, "A 10-year-old minor daughter... we cannot obviously ask them to take instructions. The 10-year-old daughter- you don't take instructions for her."

The petitioner contended that the 10-year-old daughter had last met her mother when she was only one year old. The petitioner emphasized that if the mother were to be executed in Yemen, the 10-year-old would lose the opportunity to ever see her mother again. "The daughter met her mother at the age of 1, if the executions happen...." submitted the counsel.

However, the Court remarked, "but please understand, this is not going to a garden, and this child is not meeting the mother in a safe circumstance. They are even concerned that a 58-year-old lady is in danger. Let us not expose the child to danger. So let it be, not the child."

"We are more concerned with the security of Indian nationals. If anything happens it will come back to the Government", submitted Narang.

The Court accordingly ordered, "Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 accepts notice. He requested for the matter to be taken on 4 December 2023, at 2 PM to enable him to take instructions in this matter."

The Court further advised the Petitioner to implead the Yemen Embassy in India as a Respondent. "Does Yemen have an embassy in India? You can negotiate through them. India is expressing its inability. What the officer of the Indian embassy can do, even the officer of Yemen can do", the Court said.

The Court in its order further noted. "Learned counsel for the Petitioner also seeks liberty to consider if the embassy of Yemen can be approached by him for prayer B in the Writ Petition."

The prayer in the Writ Petition is to enable the petitioner, along with other members of the Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council, to travel and initiate negotiations with the victim's family on behalf of Nimisha Priya to save her life by arranging the payment of blood money in accordance with the laws of the land. Alternatively, the petition sought a direction to the Union of India to commence negotiations with the victim's family on behalf of the petitioner and provide regular updates on the progress to the Delhi High Court.

Since 2017, Priya has been held in a Yemeni jail in connection with the murder of her estranged business partner, Talal Abdo Mahdi. In 2020, a court sentenced her to death for the crime.

Cause Title: Premakumari v. Union Of India & Anr.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh AroraDelhi High CourtBlood Money

Ramey Krishan Rana