The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) allowed the writ petition, issuing a mandamus directing the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to proactively pursue compensation from the deceased husband’s Cameroonian employer via diplomatic and consular channels.
The petitioner, widow Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai, filed the petition under Article 226. She sought a mandamus directing MEA (R1) to enforce her 22 June 2022 representation for compensation. The employer, Africa First Matches Industry S.A., Cameroon, had undertaken liability via a 19 October 2021 letter after her husband Ayyappan Marimuthu’s death on 13 October 2021. She claimed that, as an indigent Indian citizen unable to litigate abroad, she is entitled to parens patriae protection from the welfare State.
The husband died in Cameroon during employment. The employer acknowledged liability but defaulted on payment of compensation. The petitioner represented to MEA on 22 June 2022. MEA urged the High Commission in Yaoundé on 13 July 2022 but took no further action. The Virudhunagar Collector disclaimed responsibility, which the Court described as “washing hands off”.
The petitioner resides in Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu. Her husband, an Indian citizen, died abroad. The employer is now defunct after its person-in-charge’s death, with uncertain status. The Union argued that consular aid was exhausted, foreign litigation is expensive, and the case falls beyond the scope of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The Court framed the issue as, whether the welfare State has a duty to enforce a citizen’s overseas rights when she cannot.
The Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan held that the welfare State must protect citizens abroad under Articles 38, 39 and 39A and the Preamble. Absent a domestic statute, the Courts have historically imported international norms. It relied on Articles 51(c) and 253, UN Migrant Workers Convention Article 71, and Indian jurisprudence[1].
The Court made an interesting observation on the use of legal maxims, noting that ideas of justice and state responsibility are not limited to Latin principles alone. Referring to the Shanthi Parva of the Mahabharata, the Court highlighted the age-old belief that a ruler who collects revenue but fails to protect the people acts unjustly. The Court observed that such thoughts, drawn from Indian philosophical and legal traditions, reflect the same practical wisdom that legal maxims are meant to convey. It noted that while Indian courts regularly rely on Western sources, there is equal value in principles found in India’s own classical texts and languages. The Court suggested that compiling such indigenous maxims would make legal reasoning more rooted in India’s social and historical context.
In result, the Court issued mandamus to MEA to actively pursue compensation through diplomatic/consular pressure, MADAD/ICWF/panels, and provide legal facilitation in Cameroon. The Court criticised governmental passivity and ensured the petitioner is not sent “empty-handed”.
Cases relied on:
1. Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 130
2. Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613
3. Anju Sharma vs. Union of India and Ors., 2021:DHC:1571
4. Jemima Arumaithai and Ors. vs. The Secretary to Government and Ors., MANU/TN/7439/2023
5. Lawyers Beyond Borders (LBB) India and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., 2020/KER/30574
6. Vishaka and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. A John Vincent
For the Respondents: Mr. ARL Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. K Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India for R1 to R3
Mr. KS Selvaganesan, Additional Government Pleader for R4 to R6
[1] Vishaka and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
