Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today strongly criticised the Delhi Police for its “sheer negligence” in allowing a Russian woman to flee the country with her five-year-old child, in violation of its orders in an ongoing custody dispute with the child's Indian father.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed a detailed order after reviewing the status reports filed by the Delhi Police and an affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Court noted that the incident occurred due to the failure of the Delhi Police to act as directed in the Court's earlier order dated May 22, 2025.

“At the outset we are constrained to observe that the incident of taking away the child by the petitioner has happened apparently due to sheer negligence and failure of the Delhi police in performing its duties in terms of the direction contained in para 16(iv) of our order dated 22nd May, 2025”, the Court observed.

In that order, the Court had directed the Delhi Police to maintain discreet but effective vigil over the residences of both parents and to deploy women police officers who could enter the woman's residence in case of an emergency.

The Court observed that the police failed to maintain surveillance and allowed the woman to leave her home with the child on July 7. Even after the child's father lodged a complaint, the authorities did not act promptly, the Court noted. CCTV footage showed the woman leaving the premises with the child that day around 2.75 p.m., using the back door.

During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant remarked, “What were they (Delhi Police) doing? It is a clear case of criminal negligence on their part also.” He added that local police officials, including the Deputy Commissioner of Police, “owe a responsibility” and would not be spared. “After 7th of July they are running from pillar to post,” he said.

The affidavit filed in Court revealed that the woman, Viktoriia Basu, had travelled by taxi from Delhi to Narkatiaganj Railway Station in Bihar, reaching there on July 8, and then crossed into Nepal. She boarded a flight from Nepal to Sharjah on July 12 and ultimately reached Russia.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, submitted that the woman had reached Russia, and diplomatic channels were now involved. “We are taking it up with Nepal, UAE and Russia,” Bhati told the bench.

Justice Kant pointed out that the foreign jurisdictions mentioned may only be transit points and said, “Ultimately if the contemnor and the child have reached Russia, then you have to talk to your Indian ambassador there and talk to the local authority and local channels.”

In the order, the Court said that had the Delhi Police taken timely steps, they could have prevented her from boarding the flight. “That means for 4 days she was in Nepal. Had the Delhi police taken any course of action, we are quite sure that preventive measures could be taken to not allow her to board the flight,” the Court observed.

The Court also expressed concern over the possible use of forged documents, observing that the child's original Indian passport was still in the custody of the Court. “The forging/duplication of the passport of the child has also been committed,” the Court observed, adding that these aspects had “apparently not been considered by the Delhi Police”.

During the hearing, ASG Bhati claimed that the airlines had refused to share travel data citing privacy concerns. “No airline can claim right to privacy in the matter of commission of crime,” Justice Kant said, calling it a case of “complete lack of sensitivity and complete negligence”.

He also criticised the authorities for treating the matter lightly, assuming it to be a routine matrimonial dispute. “The police and the Ministry have taken this lightly because they think that it is a case of a child been taken by his own mother in a matrimonial dispute. It is not like that. There was a custody dispute,” he said. Justice Bagchi suggested using Interpol intelligence sharing platforms.

The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to immediately reach out to the Indian Embassy in Moscow and explore ways to establish contact with the woman and the child.

The Court emphasised that the minor child has been taken from the custody of the Court, not the custody of his parents. Calling the incident a “flagrant violation of the orders of the Court”, the bench warned that it amounted to criminal contempt and might also invite prosecution under relevant penal provisions for removing a child from custody of the Court.

“The Union of India also must keep in mind that the minor child has been taken from the custody of this court. It is not a case of a custodial dispute between parents of the child, who's custody has not been handed over to either the father and the mother. It was in exercise of our duty as parens patriae that we were resolving the issue and the child was in the custody of the court,” the order stated.

Before taking any “harsh action”, the Court gave one last opportunity to the authorities to coordinate with the Indian embassy in Russia, use Interpol mechanisms, and take appropriate legal steps. It directed them to inform the Court about the complete process they propose to adopt for producing the woman and the child before the bench.

The matter has been listed after 10 days.

Background

The case arose from a custody battle between Viktoriia Basu, a Russian citizen, and her Indian husband. Pursuant to interim orders of the Supreme Court, they were residing in separate accommodations in Delhi, sharing joint custody of their five-year-old child. On May 22, the Court had directed that the mother would have custody three days a week, and the father on the remaining days.

On July 7, the father reported that the mother and child were missing after school hours. He stated that the child had not been taken for medical check-ups or school, and that his complaints had gone unanswered. He also claimed that the woman was seen entering the Russian embassy through a back door on July 4, accompanied by a diplomat.

On July 17, the Court passed directions to trace the woman and child and prevent them from leaving the country. It also warned the petitioner's lawyers for giving evasive responses.

On July 21, the Court was informed that the woman had reached Russia. The Court had then noted that this would involve criminal contempt and potentially forged documents, given that the child's passport was in the Court's custody. It had asked the authorities to initiate steps through diplomatic and legal channels.

Case no. – W.P.(Crl.) No. 129/2023

Case Title – Viktoriia Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors.