Introduction:

In Mujeeb Khan for and on behalf of Aftab Khan Missing v. Union of India, LPA 73 of 2026, the Delhi High Court addressed a sensitive issue concerning the rights of Indian citizens and their families when faced with tragic incidents abroad. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was seized of a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Mujeeb Khan, the brother of Aftab Khan, an Indian national employed as a Chef at a resort in the Republic of Maldives. Aftab Khan allegedly went missing on January 27, 2025 after being swept away by strong sea currents during a snorkelling activity originating from the resort where he was working. The appeal arose from an earlier order of a Single Judge who had disposed of the writ petition on the premise that the matter was no longer one of a missing person, based on status reports placed on record by authorities. The appellant, however, contended that while the missing status may have been administratively concluded, the core grievance regarding lack of effective consular access and meaningful legal assistance to pursue remedies against the employer in Maldives for alleged negligence remained unresolved. The Division Bench was thus called upon to examine the scope of the Central Government’s obligation to provide consular protection and assistance to Indian nationals and their families in foreign jurisdictions.

Arguments:

On behalf of the appellant it was argued that the disappearance of Aftab Khan was not merely a factual incident but a matter involving serious concerns of labour safety and employer accountability under Maldivian law. Counsel submitted that Aftab Khan was employed at a resort and that the snorkelling activity during which he allegedly went missing was connected to his place of employment. It was contended that there were allegations of negligence and violation of safety norms by the employer, and that the family intended to pursue appropriate legal remedies before competent authorities in Maldives. However, despite repeated representations and earlier judicial directions, the authorities had allegedly failed to facilitate meaningful consular access. The appellant argued that the earlier writ petition had been prematurely disposed of by the Single Judge on the limited premise that the case was no longer one of a missing person, without adjudicating upon the larger grievance of lack of effective assistance. It was emphasized that consular access is not confined to information sharing but extends to facilitating legal recourse, coordinating with local investigative agencies, and assisting families in navigating foreign legal systems. The appellant submitted that the Indian High Commission in Maldives had not adequately coordinated meetings with the employer or investigative authorities, nor had it facilitated entry and exit procedures for the family and their legal advisers to effectively pursue proceedings under Maldivian law. The appellant therefore sought a direction mandating the Central Government to ensure active and substantive consular assistance.

The Central Government, represented by counsel, relied upon a detailed status report asserting that the Indian High Commission in Maldives had extended all possible assistance within the framework of international law. It was submitted that the incident was under investigation by local authorities in Maldives and that the family had been kept informed about developments. The Government contended that diplomatic missions operate within the confines of the host country’s legal system and cannot compel foreign authorities beyond the limits of sovereign jurisdiction. It was argued that the High Commission had provided necessary support, including liaison with Maldivian authorities, and that no further directions were warranted. The respondents emphasized that the scope of judicial review in matters involving diplomatic functions and foreign affairs is limited, and that the Court should exercise restraint in issuing directions that may intrude upon executive discretion in international relations.

Judgment:

After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court proceeded to balance the competing considerations of diplomatic autonomy and protection of citizens’ rights. The Court noted that while the Single Judge may have been justified in concluding that the missing person aspect had been addressed in light of status reports, the broader grievance concerning effective consular access and facilitation of legal remedies required independent consideration. The Bench observed that consular assistance is a vital facet of the State’s responsibility toward its citizens abroad, particularly in cases involving death, disappearance, or alleged negligence by employers in foreign jurisdictions. While acknowledging that diplomatic missions must function within the legal framework of the host country, the Court emphasized that the obligation to provide meaningful assistance does not end with mere communication of status reports. The Court held that facilitating entry and exit procedures, coordinating meetings with employers and investigative authorities, and enabling access to local legal advisers fall within the legitimate scope of consular support. Without entering into the merits of alleged negligence or determining liability under Maldivian law, the Court directed the concerned authorities to grant consular access to the appellant and their legal advisers in Maldives, to facilitate logistical requirements, and to coordinate meetings with the employer and local investigative authorities so that the family may pursue appropriate legal proceedings. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with these directions. The order thus underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that executive authorities discharge their protective obligations toward citizens abroad while respecting the contours of international comity and sovereign jurisdiction.