Back
Steps In: Family of Missing Indian Chef Gets Green Light for Justice in Maldives
In a significant ruling, the has directed the Central government to grant and facilitate legal proceedings for the family of Aftab Khan, an Indian chef who vanished during a snorkelling outing at a Maldives resort. A comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued these orders on , while disposing of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) 73/2026. The decision overturns a single judge's closure of the writ petition, emphasizing ongoing consular obligations beyond a mere "missing person" label.
From Resort Beach to Courtroom Battle
Aftab Khan, employed as Chef de Partie at Ifuru Island Resort in the Maldives on a valid work visa (, to ), disappeared on . He was reportedly snorkelling with colleague Paramjit Singh near the resort's beach when strong currents swept him away. Rescue efforts saved Paramjit but failed for Aftab.
His brother, Mujeeb Khan, filed Writ Petition (C) 2894/2025 in the
, urging urgent intervention to safeguard his brother's rights, demand a thorough probe, and secure consular aid to sue the resort for alleged negligence and breaches of labour and safety laws. A status report from the
detailed the
's coordination with Maldivian authorities, including police updates shared with the family and assistance for their Maldives visits. However, the single judge dismissed the petition on
, deeming it
"no longer a case of missing person"
and reserving liberty for future grievances.
Family's Cry: "Access Denied, Justice Delayed"
Appellant's counsel, including , argued the dismissal ignored core demands for and legal support to initiate Maldivian lawsuits against the resort. Despite court orders on April 8 and , and repeated emails to the and , responses were "perfunctory," merely redirecting to foreign channels, they claimed. The rejoinder to the status report labeled it a "recital of correspondence" masking abdication of duties.
Respondents, represented by (CGSC) with and , countered with the , status report. It highlighted continuous follow-ups, family briefings on police reports, and offers to arrange meetings—asserting full cooperation and that the probe remained active.
Bridging Diplomatic Gaps: The Court's Sharp Focus
The Bench zeroed in on the family's unresolved plea for tools to pursue accountability abroad. No precedents were cited, but the ruling underscores 's reach in enforcing consular protections for Indians overseas, distinguishing administrative updates from substantive aid.
Key Observations from the judgment illuminate the pivot:
"The primary concern raised by the Appellant in this Appeal is that the was delivered without addressing the substantive and ongoing grievance regarding the provision of and legal assistance necessary for initiating proceedings in the Republic of Maldives against the Employer - Resort for alleged negligence and violation of Labour and Safety Laws."(Para 2)
"The sole outstanding grievance of the Appellant pertains to and legal assistance for exercising their rights to initiate legal proceedings against the employer of the late Mr. Aftab Khan, regarding alleged negligence or violations of Labour and Safety Laws."(Para 11)
"Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are fully cooperating with the Appellant and are in regular communication with the employer... and have expressed their readiness to provide any necessary assistance."(Para 12)
These quotes capture the shift from search efforts to justice facilitation.
Victory at Last: Directions That Open Doors
The Court disposed of the appeal with clear mandates: Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (key Central authorities) must grant to the appellant and their legal advisors in the Maldives, facilitate entry and exit procedures, and coordinate meetings with the resort and local investigators.
"Accordingly, the present Appeal is disposed of with a direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to grant to the Appellant and their legal advisors in the Maldives, facilitate assistance for entry and exit procedures, and coordinate meetings with the employer of the late Mr. Aftab Khan as well as the local investigative authorities."(Para 13)
This empowers the family to press negligence claims under Maldivian law, potentially setting a template for consular support in cross-border worker tragedies. It signals courts' intolerance for bureaucratic hurdles in fundamental rights enforcement, especially for vulnerable migrant workers—ripples that could aid countless Indians abroad facing similar ordeals.
