No diplomatic ties with Yemen: Centre to HC on mother's plea seeking to save daughter on death row
New Delhi, Dec 4: The Delhi High Court Monday asked the Centre whether it was willing to grant permission to the mother of a Kerala woman, who is on death row in Yemen for killing a Yemeni national, along with three others to travel to that country to negotiate with the victim's family about paying blood money to save her daughter from the gallows.
The central government counsel informed Justice Subramonium Prasad that India does not have diplomatic ties with Yemen and it has closed down its embassy there. The counsel said it would not be desirable for the mother to visit the foreign nation currently riven by strife.
"The situation in the Middle East is not good. It is not desirable to travel to Yemen in this situation. India will not be able to help if anything happens to the petitioner (mother) there. We don't want a ransom demand situation should arise there," the counsel, representing the Centre, submitted.
Yemen's Supreme Court had on November 13 dismissed the appeal of Nimisha Priya, who was working as a nurse in the west Asian country, against her sentence.
Priya has been convicted of murdering Talal Abdo Mahdi, who died in July 2017, after she injected him with sedatives in order to get back her passport from his possession.
It was alleged that Priya administered him sedatives so she could take back her passport while he was unconscious but he died of an overdose.
Priya's mother moved the high court earlier this year seeking permission to go to Yemen in spite of a travel ban for Indian nationals and negotiate the "blood money" to save her daughter.
Blood money refers to the compensation paid by offenders or their kin to the family of a murder victim.
Advocate Subhash Chandran K R, who represented the petitioner, said some Indians running businesses in Yemen and currently in India are being granted permission to travel there.
The counsel said they know some Indians who have valid Yemeni visas and they are willing to accompany the woman and negotiate blood money with the victim's family.
The high court asked the petitioner's counsel to file an affidavit by tomorrow stating the details of those willing to travel to Yemen with the woman.
It listed the matter for December 11 for further hearing.
The woman had filed the plea seeking facilitation of her travel to Yemen for urgent hearing on December 2 on which the court had issued notice to the Centre and sought its response.
The petitioner's lawyer had said a letter informing about the Supreme Court of Yemen dismissing Priya's appeal was received on December 1 and her execution can take place anytime.
The lawyer said the petitioner was not asking the government to pay blood money and was only seeking permission to travel to Yemen.
The plea sought the court's direction to the Union government to facilitate the travel of the petitioner, Priya's 10-year-old daughter, and two other adult family members to Yemen to try and save her after negotiating with the victim's family.
The 'Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council' had approached the high court last year and sought direction to the Centre to "facilitate diplomatic interventions as well as negotiations with the family of the victim on behalf of Nimisha Priya to save her life by paying blood money in accordance with the law of the land in a time-bound manner".
The petition alleged Mahdi had forged documents to show he and Priya were married and abused and tortured her.
The high court had last month asked the Centre to take a decision within a week on the woman's request to travel to Yemen.
The high court had earlier refused to direct the Centre to negotiate payment of blood money to save Priya's life but asked it to pursue legal remedies against her conviction.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
