NEW DELHI, Apr 6:
The Supreme Court Wednesday permitted the CBI to ensure that appropriate notice is issued in respect of an Egyptian national, who has taken away his minor son to his native country flouting the court orders after the agency said it was needed to ascertain their location.
The apex court had last month directed the CBI to pursue the issuance of a red corner notice against the man.
A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud was told by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati that it would be appropriate to issue a blue notice for the man and a yellow notice for the minor as he is a missing child.
While a blue notice is issued for collecting additional information about a person’s identity, location, or activities concerning a crime, a yellow notice is issued to help locate a missing person, often a minor.
“This will allow us to ascertain their location and once the location is ascertained, then from the diplomatic channel, efforts for extradition can be made,” the ASG told the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant which said it would permit the probe agency to do that and posted the matter for further hearing on July 12.
It noted that in pursuance of the previous order, the ASG has submitted that with the permission of the court, the CBI will ensure that appropriate notices are issued both in respect of the man and the minor child.
“We consider it appropriate to permit the CBI to do so having regard to the fact that the minor child was secreted away from the jurisdiction of the competent court in India in violation of the directions of the court,” the bench said.
It said the CBI shall coordinate with Interpol so that appropriate notices are issued.
While hearing the matter last month, the top court had impleaded CBI as a party in the case after all efforts to make Khaled Kamal Hussein Mohamed Kassem appear before the court failed.
The bench had said that failure of Kassem to abide by the terms and conditions which were imposed by the Bombay High Court would not only invite action in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction but, in addition, “this court must take a serious note of the conduct of the first respondent (Kassem) who has taken away the child in an attempt to foreclose the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court and remedies available to the petitioners.”
Advocate Charu Ambwani, appearing for the maternal aunt and grandmother of the child, had told the court that Kassem had committed contempt of court by not following the orders.
The top court was dealing with an appeal against the Bombay High Court order on a petition filed by Kassem, who is the father of a minor child born on February 3, 2019.
The appeal has been filed in the apex court by the maternal aunt and grandmother of the child.
According to the appeal, the sister of the first petitioner and daughter of the second petitioner had married Kassem in August 2014 under the auspices of the Embassy of Egypt in Myanmar.
The bench had earlier noted that the marriage was registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on October 17, 2014, and both Kassem and the deceased sister of the first petitioner were working in the same office in Mumbai in November 2007 and their relationship eventually ended in them getting married.
It had noted, “The sister of the first petitioner died on April 17, 2019, soon after the birth of the child. Since his birth, the child was in the custody of the petitioners until, in pursuance of the order of the High Court, the first respondent was permitted to take the child away with him”.
Later, Kassem had instituted a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus on November 23, 2019, and initially by an order dated December 13, 2019, the high court made an interim arrangement under which the interim custody of the child was to be handed over to Kassem till January 6, 2020.
By a judgement dated January 30, 2020, the high court had allowed the petition for habeas corpus and issued a slew of directions like the interim custody of the child being given to Kassem.
It had directed that Kassem shall maintain the custody of the child at Pune preferably in the vicinity near the house of the maternal aunt of the child for eight weeks.
It had said that after March 27, 2020, Kassem can take the child along with him to his workplace in Abu Dhabi and he shall at least four times a year bring the child to Pune.
The appeal has alleged that on February 16, 2020, an e-mail was received from Kassem stating that he had taken the child with him to Egypt and since then the direction to bring the child to India four times in a year was breached. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel