SC asks Centre to appoint nodal officer, assist families killed or missing in Russia-Ukraine war

SC asks Centre to appoint nodal officer for Russia-Ukraine war families

Theindiapostdaily.com – The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre to appoint a nodal officer in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to coordinate with the families of those who have died, gone missing, or suffered injuries while fighting in the Russia-Ukraine war. This directive comes as the court seeks to streamline assistance for affected Indian families during this ongoing crisis.

Key directions issued by the bench

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also directed the MEA to facilitate DNA matching of family members with the mortal remains. The bench asked the MEA to assist affected families in filing compensation claims before the Russian Embassy here and to provide all relevant information and updates in vernacular languages.

The bench also directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and state legal services to extend assistance to the families in securing the mortal remains of their relatives and pursuing compensation claims. These comprehensive directions aim to address multiple concerns raised by the petitioners.

The directions came while hearing a petition filed by family members of those who allegedly died or went missing after being recruited to fight in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. The court observed that in 2024 and 2025, several Indian youths travelled to Russia on different visas after being promised employment in the construction, hospitality and service sectors.

However, upon their arrival, their passports and identity documents were confiscated, and they were enrolled in the Russian armed forces before being sent to the frontlines of the conflict. Observing that many young Indians had lost their lives and that their mortal remains had not been repatriated in several cases despite verification, the bench issued a series of directions to streamline the process for their families.

Advocate Ritwik Bhanot, counsel for the petitioners, alleged that despite repeated representations, the MEA had not been responsive to the concerns of the affected families.

The petitioners’ counsel, Advocate Ritwik Bhanot, alleged that despite repeated representations, the MEA had not been responsive to the concerns of the affected families. He submitted that the bodies being returned from Russia were often in a highly decomposed state, with only bones and decomposed flesh remaining, making it impossible for families to identify their loved ones without DNA testing.

Bhanot also pointed out that the status report detailing the compensation process had been filed only a day earlier and sought time to obtain instructions from the families. The petitions were filed by families of 26 Indian nationals who alleged that their relatives had been lured to Russia on the false promise of jobs or educational opportunities but were instead coerced into joining the Russian military after their passports were confiscated.

Appearing for the Union Government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the Centre had already put in place a structured mechanism and had filed a consolidated status report explaining the procedure for repatriation and compensation. She told the Court that the Russian authorities were not handing over mortal remains without DNA matching and that the MEA had been corresponding directly with the families over the past several months.

Bhati said the Government was interacting with the families themselves and not through counsel, and maintained that no mortal remains were brought back unless requested by the family and after DNA samples were matched. She further contended that the pendency of the proceedings was unnecessarily delaying the process and alleged that the families were being misled.

Bhati also objected to the petitioners’ counsel making public comments on the matter, submitting that despite interactions with the Government, he continued to suggest before the Court that no steps were being taken, after which clips of the hearings were circulated on social media.