The Delhi High Court today has heard a contentious matter concerning the detention of Indian national Vikrant Kumar Jaitley in Abu Dhabi, with sharp exchanges between his sister, Celina Jaitely (the petitioner), his wife Charul Jaitley, and government representatives over legal representation and coordination efforts.
Counsel appearing in the matter argued that immediate facilitation of a Power of Attorney (POA) in favour of a UAE-accredited law firm would save public funds and expedite legal representation. Emphasising cost concerns, it was argued: “The only reason I was pushing for a law firm is because it’s going to save a lot of extra money… It shouldn’t be a case where public money is spent unnecessarily.”
The counsel also asserted that the proposed firm was the only one properly accredited to appear before UAE courts.
Wife Opposes Petition
Charul Jaitley, wife of the detainee, speaking via video conference from Abu Dhabi, strongly objected to the petition and distanced herself from the proceedings. She submitted that she is in constant touch with Indian authorities: “I, as his legally designated wife and next of kin, am in constant touch with the Ministry of External Affairs and the Embassy in Abu Dhabi.”
She further alleged that sensitive personal information had been shared publicly without consent. Regarding the proposed law firm, she conveyed her husband’s reservations: “The name of the law firm has been shared, and my husband feels the association of an Emirati individual with the firm will compromise the sensitive nature of his investigation.”
Court Emphasises Coordination between Family Members
The Bench repeatedly urged both family members to work in tandem for the detainee’s welfare. The Court made it clear that it would not allow personal disputes to derail proceedings:
“I am not going to allow the petitioner and the wife… to get their personal disputes adjudicated in this petition. We have to restrict this matter only to the extent of Vikrant’s release.”
The Court directed that Vikrant be informed about the proposed appointment letter issued in favour of the pro bono firm and clarified:
“If Mr. Vikrant is not willing to take assistance from the firm, then he will have to suggest any other law firm… In any case, legal assistance will depend upon the opinion of Mr. Vikrant who is under detention.”
The Ministry informed the Court that consular access had been granted and Vikrant had been apprised of available legal options. The next consular interaction is proposed for 13 February 2026, subject to the UAE authorities’ approval.
The Court also directed that all relevant documents filed by the petitioner be shown to Vikrant to ascertain his wishes directly and, if possible, obtain clarity in writing.
Government counsel indicated that aspects of the matter involve sensitive considerations, offering to place certain details before the Court in a sealed cover.
The Bench permitted submission of a confidential note for judicial perusal and listed the matter or further hearing on Tuesday,
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Raghav Kacker, Mr. Suradhish Wats, Mr. Ribhav Pande, Mr. Madhav Aggarwal, Ms. Priya Tyagi, Ms. Rishika Aggarwal and Mr. Aayush Shukla, Advcoates along with the Petitioner in Person.
Respondent- Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC.