The Madras High Court examined the issue of legal assistance to Indian citizens living or working outside the country and held that the Union Government has a constitutional obligation to frame a policy for providing such assistance. The Court observed that the absence of a specific statutory framework cannot dilute or negate the responsibility of the State to protect the rights and interests of its citizens. It emphasized that the duty of the Government flows directly from constitutional principles and is not confined to the territorial boundaries of India. The Court underscored that the State’s obligation to its citizens continues even when they reside or work abroad, especially when they face legal difficulties, exploitation, or denial of lawful entitlements in foreign jurisdictions.
The case before the Court arose from a petition filed by a woman whose husband had died while employed in Cameroon, Central Africa. Following his death, the employer had allegedly assured compensation or support to the family but subsequently failed to fulfill that commitment. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking assistance from the Indian Government to secure what was due to her from the employer. She contended that despite approaching authorities, effective legal or diplomatic intervention had not been provided to enable her to pursue her claim or obtain compensation abroad.
During the proceedings, the Union Government submitted that consular assistance had already been extended to the extent possible, including communications through diplomatic channels. It was further argued that there was no express provision under the Legal Services Authorities Act or any other legislation that empowered the Government to provide legal aid outside India. On this basis, it was contended that the Government’s role was limited and that it could not be compelled to arrange or fund legal representation in a foreign country in the absence of statutory authority.
The High Court rejected this narrow interpretation of the Government’s responsibilities. It held that constitutional duties cannot be constrained by the lack of specific legislation. The Court reasoned that India is a welfare State and that the Constitution, along with its Preamble and directive principles, imposes an obligation on the Government to protect citizens and ensure access to justice. The Court emphasized that these obligations are not extinguished merely because citizens cross national borders for employment or livelihood.
The Court took note of the fact that a significant number of Indian citizens work abroad and contribute substantially to the national economy through remittances. It observed that migrant workers form a vital part of the country’s economic structure, and the State derives considerable benefit from their labour and earnings. In this context, the Court held that the Government has a corresponding duty to support these citizens when they face injustice, exploitation, or legal obstacles in foreign countries. The Court stated that the relationship between the State and its citizens is reciprocal, and the benefits enjoyed by the State impose responsibilities that cannot be disowned.
In elaborating on the constitutional basis of this duty, the Court referred to provisions that emphasize social justice, equality, and access to justice. It noted that the Constitution envisages the State as an active protector of citizens’ rights, particularly for those who are vulnerable or disadvantaged. The Court observed that citizens working abroad often find themselves in unfamiliar legal systems, with limited resources and reduced capacity to assert their rights effectively. In such circumstances, the State’s intervention becomes essential to prevent injustice and ensure fairness.
The High Court also invoked the principle of parens patriae, under which the State assumes the role of guardian and protector of its citizens. It explained that this doctrine reflects the responsibility of the Government to safeguard the welfare of individuals who are unable to protect their own interests. Applying this principle, the Court held that Indian citizens abroad, particularly those facing legal disputes or denial of rightful claims, fall within the protective ambit of the State’s obligations.
In its reasoning, the Court referred to broader constitutional philosophy and historical notions of governance that emphasize the ruler’s duty to protect and care for subjects. These concepts were cited to reinforce the idea that modern constitutional governance in India inherits and institutionalizes this duty through legal and constitutional mechanisms. The Court made it clear that such obligations are not symbolic or ceremonial but impose concrete responsibilities on the Government to act.
The High Court also considered the relevance of international principles and conventions that recognize the responsibility of States toward their nationals abroad. While acknowledging that not all such instruments may be formally binding on India, the Court observed that they can still provide guidance in interpreting constitutional duties and shaping policy responses. The Court stressed that in an increasingly globalized world, where cross-border employment is common, the State must adapt its policies to protect citizens in transnational contexts.
The Court clarified that providing legal assistance does not necessarily mean interfering with the sovereignty of foreign States or bypassing their legal systems. Rather, it involves facilitating access to justice through lawful means, such as diplomatic engagement, coordination with foreign authorities, assistance in securing legal representation, or other appropriate measures. The Court emphasized that the exact contours of such assistance must be determined by the executive, taking into account practical constraints and international norms.
While the Court refrained from prescribing the specific contents of the policy to be framed, it categorically directed the Union Government to formulate a comprehensive and workable framework for extending legal assistance to Indian citizens abroad. The Court observed that such a policy should be capable of addressing situations where citizens face disputes with employers, denial of contractual benefits, or other legal challenges that require professional representation or intervention.
The High Court noted that the absence of a structured policy leaves citizens dependent on ad hoc responses and discretionary decisions, which may vary from case to case and fail to provide consistent or effective relief. It held that a formal policy would ensure clarity, accountability, and accessibility, enabling citizens to know what assistance they can expect and how to seek it. The Court emphasized that the objective of such a policy must be to ensure that Indian citizens are not left remediless simply because their grievances arise outside the country.
In concluding its decision, the Court reaffirmed that constitutional values of justice, dignity, and equality must guide State action, even beyond territorial borders. It held that the Government cannot take refuge in legislative silence to avoid its responsibilities and must proactively act to protect citizens who contribute to the nation while working abroad. The Court’s direction reflects a recognition of the changing realities of migration and globalization and the need for the State to respond with corresponding legal and policy frameworks.
The judgment thus stands as a significant affirmation of the State’s duty toward Indian citizens overseas, emphasizing that access to justice and protection of rights are not confined by geography. By directing the Union Government to frame a policy for providing legal assistance abroad, the Madras High Court underscored the enduring nature of constitutional obligations and the role of the State as a protector of its citizens wherever they may be.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.