Introduction
NRIs continue to possess fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, irrespective of residence abroad. Article 14 guarantees equality before law, while Article 21 protects life, personal liberty, dignity, and the right to a fair trial. Courts have repeatedly held that citizenship, not residence, determines the availability of fundamental rights. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded Article 21 to include due process and fairness, a protection equally available to NRIs facing state action in India. These safeguards ensure that arbitrary arrest, detention, or denial of legal remedies against NRIs is unconstitutional.
Can NRIs Be Arrested or Prosecuted Without Due Process?
Indian criminal law mandates strict procedural safeguards for NRIs facing arrest or investigation. In DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down binding guidelines on arrest, including the right to be informed of grounds, access to a lawyer, and intimation to family members. These protections apply equally to NRIs. Courts have clarified that failure to follow arrest procedures can invalidate detention and invite departmental action. NRIs can also seek exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC, as recognised in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim (2001), allowing proceedings to continue through counsel.
Can NRIs Seek Anticipatory Bail and Quashing of FIRs?
NRIs have full access to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, even if they are residing abroad. High Courts have repeatedly allowed anticipatory bail applications through power of attorney holders. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011), the Supreme Court emphasised that anticipatory bail protects personal liberty and should not be denied mechanically. False or malicious FIRs can be challenged before High Courts under Section 482 CrPC, as reaffirmed in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which laid down categories where criminal proceedings deserve quashing.
How Do New Criminal Laws Affect NRIs?
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam introduce procedural changes affecting investigation, arrest, and evidence. These changes place greater compliance burdens on accused persons, which can disproportionately affect NRIs due to distance and travel constraints. Courts continue to rely on constitutional safeguards under Articles 14 and 21 to ensure that procedural changes do not dilute personal liberty.
What Legal Remedies Exist for NRI Matrimonial and Family Disputes?
Women married to NRIs enjoy protection under Indian matrimonial and criminal laws. In Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991), the Supreme Court held that foreign divorce decrees are not automatically enforceable in India unless they comply with Indian jurisdictional requirements. This ruling protects deserted spouses from unilateral foreign divorces. Maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC and protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, apply irrespective of the husband’s residence abroad, as recognised in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015).
Can NRIs Protect Property and Civil Rights from Abroad?
NRIs frequently face property disputes involving fraud or illegal dispossession. Courts have upheld the validity of power of attorney arrangements for managing property and litigation. In Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana (2012), the Supreme Court clarified the legal limits of GPA transactions while recognising lawful agency-based management. NRIs can pursue civil suits, injunctions, and criminal remedies through authorised representatives without physical presence.
Conclusion
NRIs should engage lawyers experienced in cross-border litigation at the earliest stage. Executing a properly attested power of attorney enables participation in criminal, civil, and family proceedings. Indian e-courts portals allow real-time case tracking, while Indian missions abroad provide limited consular assistance for procedural facilitation. Courts have consistently recognised that distance cannot become a ground to deny justice to NRIs when constitutional rights are at stake.
