New Delhi – Viktoriia Basu, a Russian national, has become the focal point of a complex international custody dispute after she allegedly fled India with her minor son in apparent violation of a Supreme Court order. The case, which involves both Indian and Russian authorities, has drawn significant attention due to the diplomatic and legal complexities surrounding cross-border child custody, the alleged involvement of Russian embassy officials, and the challenge of enforcing court orders across national jurisdictions.

Basu first arrived in India in 2019. Over the years, she settled in the country and became involved in family legal proceedings following the breakdown of her marriage. In 2023, after failed reconciliation attempts with her estranged husband, Basu approached the Indian courts seeking full custody of her child. This request triggered a prolonged legal process, culminating in a Supreme Court directive in May 2023 that aimed to balance the parental rights of both parties. The Court’s order established a shared-custody arrangement, granting each parent three days a week with the child. The Supreme Court also extended Basu’s visa and instructed Delhi Police to maintain surveillance over her residence to ensure compliance with the custody arrangement.

Despite these measures, the situation escalated in July 2025. On July 7, Basu’s husband informed the Supreme Court that she had disappeared with the child, prompting an immediate search by law enforcement agencies. The case quickly took on an international dimension, as it became apparent that Basu might have crossed national borders, raising questions about the role of diplomatic channels and the cooperation required between India and Russia to resolve the issue.

Delhi Police investigations suggested that Basu had left Delhi and traveled to the Indo-Nepal border in Bihar, from where she reportedly journeyed onward to Russia via Sharjah. The investigation alleged that two Russian embassy officials, Albert Shtoda and Arthur Gerbst, had facilitated her escape by arranging a vehicle for the journey from Delhi to the border. According to law enforcement authorities, the evidence collected indicated “clear facilitation” by the officials, making the case not only a matter of custody law but also a potential breach of Indian legal jurisdiction involving foreign diplomats.

The Russian embassy, however, has categorically denied any role in Basu’s departure from India. In a communication to India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the embassy stated that counsellor Arthur Gerbst had merely contacted a taxi operator on behalf of Basu’s mother, Olga Zhigalina, to arrange a vehicle. The embassy insisted that no official vehicle or resources were used for the Basu family and termed the allegations “factually incorrect.” The statement stressed that no embassy officers had assisted Basu in evading Indian authorities.

Delhi Police, while acknowledging the embassy’s statement, expressed reservations regarding its accuracy. Authorities informed the Supreme Court that the clarification provided by the Russian embassy was inconsistent with the evidence collected during the investigation. In response, a fresh request was sent through the MEA on November 24, seeking detailed information on the roles of the two officials named and clarifying whether diplomatic immunity might hinder the investigation. This request came in the wake of earlier criticism from the Supreme Court over the lack of attempts to secure custodial interrogation of the embassy officers and the delay in issuing a Red Corner Notice (RCN) for Basu.

The Red Corner Notice, an international request to law enforcement agencies to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, has now been initiated. According to Delhi Police, a formal request for custodial questioning of the two Russian embassy officials had been sent to the MEA on November 11. The police emphasized that cooperation from the embassy is crucial for a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding Basu’s escape and to ensure that Indian legal directives are upheld.

The MEA, while noting Russia’s position that the embassy officials were not involved, has taken additional steps to facilitate the investigation. The ministry has formally requested that the Russian embassy waive diplomatic immunity for Albert Shtoda and Arthur Gerbst under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention. This would allow Indian authorities to conduct a deeper investigation into the alleged involvement of the diplomats. Additionally, India has reached out to the Russian prosecutor general under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) to seek information about Basu and her son’s current whereabouts. These diplomatic and legal maneuvers underscore the complexity of enforcing court orders when international jurisdictions, diplomatic immunity, and cross-border family disputes intersect.

Viktoriia Basu’s case highlights several broader issues in international family law, particularly regarding custody disputes involving foreign nationals. Child custody conflicts that span multiple countries often require careful coordination between law enforcement agencies, judicial systems, and diplomatic channels. In this case, the Supreme Court’s shared-custody arrangement was intended to balance the rights of both parents while safeguarding the child’s welfare. However, Basu’s alleged departure has disrupted this arrangement and created a scenario where both the child’s best interests and the enforcement of judicial orders are at risk.

The Supreme Court of India has been closely monitoring the case, expressing concern over the failure to prevent the alleged abduction and questioning why investigative steps such as custodial interrogation of the embassy officers were delayed. The Court has underscored the importance of holding individuals accountable for violations of court orders, regardless of nationality, while balancing the sensitivities involved in dealing with foreign diplomats.

Legal experts note that the case also raises questions about the limits of diplomatic immunity in situations where officials may be implicated in actions that contravene the host country’s laws. While diplomats enjoy certain protections under international law, these privileges do not absolve them of responsibility in instances where criminal or civil infractions are alleged. Requests for waiver of immunity, as made by India’s MEA, are a standard mechanism in such cases to enable effective investigation and uphold the rule of law.

From a human perspective, the case underscores the vulnerability of children in international custody disputes. Courts generally prioritize the welfare of the child above all else, and cross-border abductions complicate efforts to ensure stability and continuity in a child’s upbringing. The authorities’ swift action to trace Basu and her son, coupled with diplomatic engagement with Russia, reflects an effort to reconcile legal compliance with humanitarian considerations.

Basu’s story began with her arrival in India in 2019 and the subsequent deterioration of her marriage. By 2023, her efforts to secure full custody of her child had led to a formal legal proceeding in the Indian courts. The Supreme Court’s shared-custody order represented a compromise aimed at balancing parental rights. However, the July 2025 incident—when Basu allegedly fled the country—has significantly escalated the matter, transforming a private family dispute into an international legal and diplomatic challenge.

The involvement of multiple stakeholders—including Delhi Police, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Supreme Court, and Russian authorities—illustrates the multidimensional nature of the case. Beyond legal enforcement, the case also highlights the importance of coordination between domestic law enforcement and foreign governments, particularly in matters involving children. International treaties, including the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, provide frameworks for addressing such issues, though not all countries or circumstances fall neatly within these provisions.

As the investigation continues, both India and Russia face the challenge of ensuring that the child’s welfare is prioritized while respecting the legal and diplomatic frameworks governing foreign nationals and embassy officials. Delhi Police have indicated that further updates will be provided to the Supreme Court as new evidence emerges and as diplomatic engagements progress. The ongoing proceedings also signal the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing its orders and addressing violations, even in complex international contexts.

In conclusion, Viktoriia Basu, the Russian national at the center of this unfolding case, represents the intersection of family law, international diplomacy, and child protection. Her alleged departure from India with her minor son in defiance of a Supreme Court order has brought multiple institutions into play, highlighting the challenges of cross-border custody enforcement. With diplomatic requests, legal investigations, and international cooperation underway, the resolution of this case will be closely watched as a precedent in managing complex custody disputes involving foreign nationals and the potential role of embassy officials in such matters.