Should Indian diplomatic missions retain Saudi lawyers? Last updated: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:24 AM Tariq A. Al-Maeena This was a question posed recently by Latheef Thechy, an Indian national and chief coordinator for Pleace India — the Pravasi Legal Aid cell in the Kingdom. He was arguing on behalf of Indian citizens in this country who may run afoul of the law and find themselves without legal counsel. In his argument he asks: “Is the help of local lawyers needed in Indian diplomatic missions in Saudi Arabia? When we discuss this issue, it is worthwhile to check what diplomatic missions of other countries do. Almost all European Union member states have diplomatic missions in Saudi Arabia; and all of them make the services of local lawyers available to their citizens. Those missions who have no local lawyers on their payrolls have entered into contracts with local legal firms to provide legal assistance to their citizens who ask for it. Some foreign missions on their websites have provided details of local legal firms whom they recommend to their citizens should they need legal assistance or advice. Even some Asian countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan use the services of local lawyers for their citizens. We have come across cases in which the Nepal mission engaged local lawyers to represent their citizens in Saudi courts.” Thechy goes on to ague that with an estimated 2.2 million Indian nationals on Saudi soil, “it is quite unfortunate that the Indian Embassy does not have the services of local legal firms available for their citizens. The embassy is not even in a position to recommend a local lawyer, if an Indian seeks such information or assistance. It is an irony that in spite of the announcements made by the Indian ‘Pravasi’ minister and State Minister for External affairs during their visits to the Kingdom that the service of Saudi lawyers would be made available to Indian citizens, nothing has been done.” To bolster his arguments, Thechy wonders about the number of Indians who are currently in Saudi jails. He asks: “How many still remain in jail even after completing their term of punishment? How many are detained pending judgment? How many innocent victims are detained in Saudi jails for want of legal follow-up, even after receiving favorable judgment? How many families/dependents of those who died during their stay in the Kingdom are yet to receive their due benefits? How many of those who were victims of traffic accidents are yet to receive their due compensation or insurance benefits even after Saudi courts have ordered that they be paid? When some of these questions were raised in the Indian Parliament, the ‘Pravasi’ minister was honest enough to admit that the ministry had no clue. Is being honest good enough? What damage has ‘having no information’ done? Have we done anything to rectify or at least improve the situation?” He cites as an example the case of “Biju Thomas who was sentenced to serve four months in jail and pay compensation of SR114,000. Biju had already spent six and a half years in jail when the case was brought to the notice of Pleace India, the organization affiliated to ‘Pravasi Legal Cell’ in New Delhi operating under the Supreme Court of India. Pleace India then sought the help of a prominent Saudi lawyer who negotiated with the grieved party and lowered the compensation amount from SR114,000 to SR50,000 enabling Biju to be freed.” With such positive results, Thechy is convinced that “with the active involvement of a Saudi lawyer, hundreds of Indians in Saudi jails can be better served.” His contention is that “if the Indian missions take stock of the legal issues and grievances that Indian expatriates encounter, they will be convinced that most of these can easily and promptly be resolved by the involvement of a Saudi lawyer. This could be a great service to their suffering citizens.” But Thechy realizes that such services will cost money and a great deal of it. He admits that “with the limited resources the Indian Embassy has at its disposal, it might not be able to gather all the information about the legal issues in which Indians are involved. Having information is the first requirement for helping the victims. Also, from what I understand, the Embassy has no authority to employee other nationals (without the prior permission or instructions from the External Affairs Ministry).” What Thechy then suggests is that the External Affairs Ministry should authorize the Indian Embassy to retain Saudi lawyers to represent Indians in required forums. As to the financial resources to pay for these lawyers, he contends that “it has to be funded by the government of India. It could be from the millions of rupees collected ‘by the Protector of Emigrants’ (the name itself implies that this institution is responsible for ‘protecting’ emigrants and the fund collected is assumed to be meant for that purpose). Embassy of India, Riyadh, is the highest revenue source among all Indian missions, a fact stated many times – including in the Indian Parliament.’ It is an argument worth considering since the Indian community in this country is very significant and the welfare of each of its citizens should remain a priority of their government. — The author can be reached at talmaeena@aol. Follow him on Twitter @talmaeena.
Posted on: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:24:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015