'Welfare State Cannot Look Away’: Madras HC on Legal Aid for Indians Employed Overseas

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has held that the Government of India has a constitutional obligation to extend legal aid and proactive assistance to Indian citizens employed abroad, even in the absence of a specific statutory framework, particularly when their survival and basic rights are at stake.

The bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan directed the Government of India to come out with a comprehensive and feasible policy framework in this regard.

Court passed the order while disposing of a writ petition filed by a poor widow from Tamil Nadu whose husband died while working in Cameroon and whose employer failed to pay promised compensation.

The petitioner, Malarvizhi alias Kottaithai, is the widow of Ayyappan Marimuthu, an Indian citizen who was employed with AFRICA First Matches Industry S.A. at Yaounde, Cameroon. Marimuthu died on October 13, 2021, while in service. Following his death, the employer issued a letter on October 19, 2021, undertaking to pay compensation to support the deceased worker’s family. However, the assurance was not honoured.

Left without any means to pursue legal remedies in a foreign country, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the Ministry of External Affairs to act on her representation and ensure payment of compensation.

Opposing the plea, the Union government submitted that consular assistance had already been provided to the extent possible. It argued that pursuing litigation abroad would be expensive and that the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 could not be invoked for extending legal aid outside India. The government also stated that the employer company was no longer functional, as its person-in-charge had passed away, making enforcement uncertain.

Justice Swaminathan rejected the narrow interpretation of the State’s role and held that such arguments were inconsistent with India’s constitutional ethos as a welfare State. The court observed that when Indian citizens are unable to protect their rights due to poverty, geographical distance or other disabling circumstances, the doctrine of parens patriae obliges the State to step in as a protector.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India and Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, court held that the duty of the State to protect life and liberty extends beyond territorial boundaries in appropriate cases. The judge also referred to earlier High Court decisions where Indian embassies were directed to initiate legal proceedings abroad on behalf of deceased migrant workers’ families.

Court took note of international norms, including provisions from the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which emphasise State assistance in compensation matters relating to the death of migrant workers.

In a strongly worded judgment, Justice Swaminathan said the absence of a legislative framework could not be a ground to deny relief. Drawing parallels from the Supreme Court’s Vishaka judgment, court held that international conventions and constitutional principles could fill legislative gaps where fundamental rights were at stake.

Court also criticised the lack of initiative shown by both the Central and State governments in the present case, observing that unlike in similar matters, no proactive stance had been taken to secure relief for the petitioner.

Emphasising the petitioner’s vulnerable condition, court noted that she was a poor widow with a young child and that her survival depended on timely assistance. It directed the Government of India to actively pursue all possible avenues, including diplomatic engagement with Cameroonian authorities, issuance of legal notices, mediation efforts, and, if required, initiation of formal legal proceedings abroad to secure compensation.

While refraining from laying down operational details, court directed the Union government to come up with a policy framework.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

Case Title: Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v. The Secretary to Government of India & Ors.

Order Date: December 16, 2025

Bench: Justice GR Swaminathan