New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Union government to take steps enabling Bollywood actor Celina Jaitly to contact her brother, retired Major Vikrant Jaitly, who has been in detention in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for more than 14 months. The court’s order comes amid a dispute over whether Vikrant wishes to maintain contact with his sister, highlighting complex family dynamics alongside questions of consular access and legal rights for Indian nationals abroad.

The matter was brought before the court through a petition filed by Celina Jaitly, who sought directions for the Central government to facilitate effective legal assistance for her brother. The petition also requested that the government ensure real-time and direct communication between the siblings, alongside regular consular access to monitor Vikrant’s well-being while he remains detained in the UAE.

A bench of Justice Sachin Datta, hearing the petition, issued directions to the Centre after the actor appeared in person, represented by senior advocates Raghav Kacker, Ribhav Pande, and Madhav Aggarwal. Celina’s counsel argued that she had not been able to contact her brother for over a year due to procedural and technical barriers, despite repeated efforts through diplomatic and legal channels.

Centre’s Response and Complicating Factors

The Centre, through its counsel, informed the court that the UAE authorities had, at the Indian government’s request, updated Vikrant’s calling card to include both Celina and his wife’s contact information. However, the Centre’s lawyer noted that Vikrant had chosen not to call his sister. “He’s chosen not to call her, because they seem to be estranged,” the lawyer told the court.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) assured the court that it would continue to make efforts to facilitate consular access to ensure Vikrant’s welfare and legal representation, but acknowledged that personal preferences on communication could not be compelled.

Adding another layer of complexity, Vikrant’s wife, who had not been formally made a party to the petition, opposed Celina’s request through her legal counsel. The lawyer stated that Vikrant had indicated his preference not to contact his sister and labelled the petition as “frivolous.” “He has indicated his preference not to contact his sister. This litigation is frivolous,” she argued, asserting that her client had already established contact with Vikrant.

Allegations of Abduction and Detention

Celina Jaitly’s petition paints a far more alarming picture of her brother’s situation. She alleges that Vikrant had been illegally abducted and detained in the UAE since September 2024 and contends that despite the passage of more than a year, the Central government has failed to obtain even basic information about his welfare or legal status.

According to the petition, the assistance provided by the government had been “perfunctory,” with no substantive updates or verified communication regarding Vikrant’s detention. Celina stated that she had been denied even a single phone call or any form of verified contact with her brother, despite exhausting all possible avenues for government intervention.

The petition raised concerns about the adequacy of consular support and emphasized the importance of safeguarding the rights of Indian citizens abroad, particularly when they are detained under unclear circumstances.

Earlier Court Directions

This case is not without precedent. On November 3, the Delhi High Court had already directed the Union Ministry of External Affairs to provide legal assistance to Vikrant and to take steps to facilitate communication between him and his sister. The court also instructed the MEA to appoint a nodal officer to oversee the case and ensure proper coordination between the authorities, the detained individual, and the family.

In its most recent status report, filed on December 3, the Centre stated that it had appointed a nodal officer and provided the legal assistance requested by Vikrant. The report reflected the government’s continued efforts to fulfill its obligations under consular guidelines, while also noting the sensitivity of the familial disputes that have arisen in parallel.

Legal and Diplomatic Challenges

The case underscores the challenges that arise at the intersection of family dynamics, diplomatic relations, and legal procedures. While the Indian government can request consular access and facilitate communication, it cannot override the expressed preferences of an adult detainee, especially if those preferences involve limiting contact with family members.

At the same time, the legal framework governing Indian citizens detained abroad obligates the government to provide effective legal representation, monitor their well-being, and report on their status. The Delhi High Court’s directive reflects the judiciary’s role in ensuring that these obligations are met while balancing personal autonomy and privacy concerns.

The Next Hearing

The Delhi High Court has scheduled the next hearing for December 23, 2025. Observers expect that the court will review the effectiveness of the measures taken by the Centre, assess whether adequate communication channels have been established, and consider the competing claims of the siblings and Vikrant’s wife.

The case continues to draw public attention, not only because of the high-profile nature of Celina Jaitly as an actor but also due to the broader implications for consular access, family rights, and government accountability.

Implications and Public Discourse

This case raises broader questions about the rights of Indian citizens detained abroad and the responsibilities of the government in such circumstances. While high-profile cases often attract media attention, they also highlight systemic challenges faced by ordinary citizens in ensuring fair treatment and legal protection in foreign jurisdictions.

Experts in international law note that ensuring consular access and facilitating legal representation are fundamental obligations of the Indian government under international conventions and diplomatic norms. However, cases like Vikrant Jaitly’s illustrate the limits of such intervention when family disputes and individual preferences complicate the situation.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s direction to the Centre marks a significant step in addressing Celina Jaitly’s petition, ensuring that measures are taken to facilitate both legal representation and communication with her detained brother. However, the case also illustrates the complex realities of international detention, the delicate balance between personal autonomy and family concerns, and the critical role of the judiciary in upholding citizens’ rights abroad.

As the matter awaits its next hearing on December 23, all eyes will be on the government’s ability to implement effective consular measures while respecting the expressed wishes of Vikrant Jaitly, and on the court’s interpretation of these competing interests. The case is likely to remain an important reference point for discussions on consular law, family rights, and government accountability in cases involving Indian nationals detained overseas.