Introduction:
The Kerala High Court in Ivanov Alexander & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 17115/2026) has provided significant relief to three foreign crew members of the Liberian-flagged vessel MSC Elsa 3, which had capsized in May last year, leaving the crew stranded in India for over a year. The matter came before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who was considering a writ petition filed by seven foreign crew members seeking permission to return to their home countries subject to conditions earlier imposed by the Court.
The case arises out of a complex maritime situation involving a vessel registered under a foreign flag, a capsizing incident, and subsequent investigations initiated under the Merchant Shipping Act as well as criminal proceedings before the Coastal Police Station, Fort Kochi. While some crew members were permitted to leave India earlier subject to conditions, including furnishing bank guarantees, three of the petitioners were unable to comply with the requirement due to technical difficulties, resulting in continued detention-like circumstances far beyond the period of active involvement in the investigation.
The High Court had earlier permitted certain crew members to return to their home countries, but imposed a condition requiring each of them to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹1 lakh. The present hearing arose when three of the petitioners informed the Court that they were unable to comply with this requirement, thereby preventing their return. The Court was therefore called upon to reconsider whether the condition imposed earlier could be modified to ensure that procedural requirements do not operate in a manner that perpetuates undue hardship on foreign nationals who are not even accused in the criminal proceedings.
The case also involves the interplay between statutory maritime investigations under the Merchant Shipping Act and criminal proceedings arising from the same incident, raising important questions regarding liberty, procedural fairness, and proportionality in conditions imposed on foreign crew members stranded due to maritime accidents.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Grashious Kuriakose, submitted that three of the foreign crew members had been unable to return to their home countries solely because of their inability to furnish the bank guarantee of ₹1 lakh each, as directed by the Court in its earlier order dated June 9, 2026. It was argued that the non-compliance was not intentional but was due to a technical difficulty in arranging bank guarantees in a foreign jurisdictional context, which made compliance practically difficult.
Counsel submitted that these petitioners had already been stranded in India for over a year following the capsizing of the vessel in May last year, despite not being named as accused in the criminal case registered by the Coastal Police Station, Fort Kochi. It was further highlighted that the three petitioners were also not named in the preliminary inquiry report in the statutory investigation conducted under the Merchant Shipping Act, thereby indicating that their continued presence in India was not essential for investigative purposes.
The petitioners therefore contended that the condition of furnishing bank guarantees was operating harshly and disproportionately against them, effectively preventing their repatriation despite judicial permission being granted earlier. They urged the Court to consider an alternative arrangement, such as permitting cash deposits in lieu of bank guarantees, to ensure compliance with the Court’s order while simultaneously enabling them to return home.
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General of India P. Sreekumar, appeared for the Union of India, the Directorate General, and the Mercantile Marine Department. The respondents did not seriously dispute the factual assertion that the petitioners were not accused in the criminal case or the statutory investigation. However, the overall position of the authorities was aligned with ensuring that procedural safeguards in maritime investigations are not compromised.
The respondents essentially left it to the discretion of the Court to decide whether any modification of conditions was warranted, while ensuring that the integrity of the ongoing statutory investigation under Section 360 of the Merchant Shipping Act remained unaffected. It was also noted that the statutory investigation was scheduled for consideration on July 9, and therefore any decision regarding the petitioners’ travel permissions should not interfere with the investigative process.
Thus, while the Union did not oppose the plea for modification in principle, it emphasised that any relaxation should balance the liberty of the petitioners with the requirements of the ongoing statutory and judicial processes arising from the maritime incident.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, after considering the submissions, took note of the practical difficulty faced by the petitioners in complying with the earlier condition requiring bank guarantees. The Court observed that the three petitioners had not been able to leave India despite earlier permission granted by the Court, solely due to their inability to furnish bank guarantees of ₹1 lakh each. The Court also recorded the submission that the difficulty was technical in nature and not attributable to any wilful non-compliance.
During the hearing, the Court orally enquired whether the petitioners had already been able to leave, and upon being informed that they had not, expressed concern over the continued delay in their repatriation. The Court considered the fact that these petitioners were not accused in the criminal proceedings and were also not named in the preliminary inquiry report arising from the maritime investigation under the Merchant Shipping Act.
Taking into account these circumstances, the Court held that the condition imposed earlier required modification in the interest of justice. The Court observed that procedural conditions should not become insurmountable barriers that defeat the very purpose of granting permission to travel, particularly when the individuals concerned are not facing criminal charges and their presence is not required for investigative purposes.
Accordingly, the Court modified its earlier order dated June 9, 2026, by permitting the three petitioners to deposit ₹1 lakh each in cash instead of furnishing bank guarantees. The Court specifically ordered that paragraph 13(i) of the earlier order shall stand modified to that extent, thereby removing the technical impediment that had prevented their departure.
This modification effectively paved the way for the three crew members to return to their home countries, subject to compliance with the revised condition of cash deposit. The Court’s approach reflects a pragmatic balancing of procedural safeguards with humanitarian considerations, particularly in cases involving foreign nationals who are stranded due to circumstances arising from maritime accidents.
The Court also took note of the ongoing statutory investigation under Section 360 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which was scheduled for consideration on July 9. In view of the pending proceedings, the Court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on July 14, thereby ensuring continued judicial oversight over the broader issues arising from the incident.
Earlier developments in the case indicate that the Court had already directed the remaining four crew members, who are implicated in the criminal proceedings, to approach the competent Magistrate Court for appropriate relief. With respect to two other petitioners, the Court had refrained from granting permission to leave, as their statements were required for the statutory investigation.
The present order therefore forms part of a phased judicial approach, distinguishing between those crew members who are not accused and those who remain subject to investigative requirements. The judgment underscores the Court’s consistent emphasis on proportionality, procedural fairness, and the avoidance of unnecessary hardship in maritime detention-related situations.
By allowing substitution of bank guarantee with cash deposit, the Kerala High Court ensured that the procedural requirement is fulfilled without creating undue financial or logistical barriers for foreign nationals. The decision also reflects judicial sensitivity to international maritime contexts, where delays in repatriation can have significant personal and professional consequences for crew members who may have no direct involvement in alleged wrongdoing.
Ultimately, the order reaffirms that conditions imposed by courts, while intended to safeguard legal processes, must remain flexible enough to accommodate practical realities, especially where liberty and international movement of individuals are at stake.