In the case related to an Indian seafarer Deepak Kumar Gupta who went missing after cargo vessel MV AGN Ragnar was attacked in the Black Sea near Ukraine, the Supreme Court today questioned the petitioner about the statutory provision for his prayer seeking investigation.

The matter was before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner alleged that Indian authorities have not taken any steps so far as investigation into the incident was concerned. However, SG Mehta countered the submission as unfair, saying that he has furnished details about how Indian authorities are following up the investigation with the Romanian and Ukraine authorities.

The petitioner's counsel then expressed a wish to circulate certain documents, which he said showcased that the Union's submissions were incorrect. One of these documents he said was a statement by an Indian Ambassador in Romania, as per which no search and rescue was conducted after 26 July.

“You want us to send Delhi police to Romania and Ukraine to investigate?” the CJI posed to the counsel.

Justice Bagchi, on the other hand, questioned the extent to which Indian authorities could meddle with an incident owed to a "hostile attack" in a foreign territory. "It's an unfortunate incident where a seaman has gone missing because of a hostile attack by a sovereign country. Now what investigation in municipal law is permissible for such an act?" the judge asked.

So far as the counsel's submission that Indian authorities were duty-bound to investigate, Justice Bagchi further said, “show us a statutory provision to undertake an investigation with respect to an act of hostility by a sovereign nation outside [Indian territory]?”

"Where is the international obligation? Under what Treaty?" the CJI supplemented.

Justice Bagchi also observed the difficulty arising from the fact that under public international law, the countries in question had not declared war. If they had done so, the Geneva Convention and other provisions relating to war could be applicable.

At this point, the SG clarified the statement of the Indian ambassador (relied upon by the petitioner) to say that it only referred to stoppage of search operations in the sea after a particular date.

In this regard, Justice Bagchi remarked that the action taken report seemed to contain correct particulars. “A rescue operation after 7 days, 10 days…is very theoretical unless it is to recover the salvage. Otherwise, recovery of human life is quite [difficult]."

Justice Bagchi further suggested that the authorities render assistance to the petitioner in securing compensation from the concerned shipping vessel operator. The judge attempted to impress upon the petitioner's counsel that flogging deficiencies of agencies was not preferable over securing some succor for the client "atleast in material form". The judge also observed that unless the present issue is closed, the presumed death certificate will not be issued, which in turn will deter a compensation claim.

Petitioner's counsel however stressed that there had been many casualties. Seeking liberty to place additional documents on record, he urged that it was unknown whether those persons were forced to go to war-torn areas.

The matter is next showing as tentatively listed on September 22.

Background

The ship was attacked near Ukraine on July 25. There were nine crew members on board, including four Indians. The Indian Embassy in Ukraine said that two of the four Indian nationals were safe, while information regarding the other two was awaited. Search and rescue operations were undertaken for the missing seafarers.

On August 3, the Court issued notice on the plea and asked the Solicitor General to immediately obtain instructions from the Indian embassies in Ukraine and Romania regarding Gupta's whereabouts. The Court also directed the MEA to use diplomatic channels to search for Gupta.

On August 7, the Court was informed that the two seafarers missing after the vessel attack could not be traced despite exhaustive search and rescue operation by the Ukrainian authorities, the Romanian Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC), the Romanian Coast Guard and associated rescue services. Taking note of the submissions, the Court asked the Centre to facilitate insurance claims for the families of the missing seafarers.

Case: Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 943/2026