The central government on Friday informed the Supreme Court that only the family of Nimisha Priya, the Kerala nurse sentenced to death in Yemen for murder should engage in negotiations with the victim’s family in Yemen to seek a pardon, asserting that the involvement of any other organisation would likely be unproductive.
Attorney General R Venkataramani conveyed this stance to a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. This came as Senior Advocate Ragenth Basant, representing the Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council, requested permission to send a delegation to approach the victim’s family for clemency.
The court, while passing its order, noted that the petitioner may submit a representation to the government, which would be considered on its merits.
Venkataramani further advised that since Nimisha’s family had already authorised someone through a power of attorney, they were the appropriate party to handle such discussions. He stressed that even well-intentioned outsiders should refrain from involvement in such sensitive matters.
The Council has filed a petition requesting that it intervene to save the life of the Kerala nurse. Basant thanked the government and others for their efforts to postpone Nimisha Priya's death sentence.
“So that’s a first step. Now the only request I have is this. We need to get the pardon first. Blood money comes as a second stage. First, the family has to forgive us. After forgiving us, the discussion on whatever the blood money comes,” said Basant.
During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath pointed out that Yemen is currently under a travel ban, making it inaccessible to ordinary individuals. He noted that only the Government of India could authorise travel to the country under special circumstances. He added that the government was already doing all it could within its capacity to support the matter.
In response, Basant acknowledged the government’s efforts and informed the court that a respected religious leader from Kerala was also involved in the case.
According to him, combined efforts by the government, the petitioner group, and the cleric had helped establish communication with the victim’s family, which resulted in the death sentence being temporarily stayed.
His submission apparently was about claims made by Sunni cleric Kanthapuram A P Aboobacker Musaliyar that he had intervened to get the execution of Nimisha Priya postponed, Indian Express reported.
Basant clarified that his request was limited to seeking permission for a small delegation—including members from the petitioner organisation and a representative associated with the cleric who reportedly had connections in Yemen—to travel for further negotiations.
He remarked that while he could easily book a flight, the current travel restrictions would only allow such a trip if the government granted an exemption.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Ragenth Basant suggested that if the government was agreeable, it could consider allowing a government representative to accompany the delegation to Yemen, though he himself couldn’t go due to potential diplomatic implications. He emphasised that the sole intention of the visit would be to engage with the victim’s family.
In response, Venkataramani expressed caution, stating that no formal steps could be taken at this stage. He explained that the situation involved multiple complexities, including diplomatic relations between the countries.
He remarked that while the government might be open to granting permission, any action that failed to produce results could worsen the situation unnecessarily. Therefore, while the matter could be considered, he requested that nothing be officially recorded.
The bench agreed, clarifying that no official record of the exchange would be made. The Attorney General added that even minor details, if made public, could turn into news stories and potentially disrupt sensitive efforts, which he hoped to avoid.
The bench asked whether the execution of Nimisha Priya had been indefinitely deferred or if a new date had been fixed. Basant replied that no date had been set as of now, to which Venkataramani responded that this suggested progress was being made.
Basant noted that Nimisha Priya’s mother had been allowed to travel to Yemen after securing permission through the Delhi High Court. He appealed to the Centre to similarly grant travel clearance to a small delegation from the petitioner organisation, explaining that the purpose was to represent Nimisha and attempt to obtain a pardon from the victim’s family.
He acknowledged that sending a government official could pose diplomatic complications but stressed that private individuals could help in a non-official capacity, provided the travel ban was relaxed under existing provisions.
However, the Attorney General reiterated that the Indian government believed only the convict’s family should be directly involved in such negotiations, as they had already granted power of attorney. He cautioned against involvement by third parties, even with good intentions, arguing that external actions might invite unwanted media attention and risk derailing delicate efforts already underway.
Venkataramani emphasised that the government's focus was on ensuring Nimisha Priya's safe release and that efforts were ongoing behind the scenes. He warned that permitting external delegations might not add value and could even complicate matters further. In his view, if the Indian government was struggling to make headway, it was unlikely that private groups would fare any better.