Devyani Khobragade case: Official tale reveals intriguing inactionSaurabh Shukla | Mail Today | New Delhi, December 19, 2013 | UPDATED 05:04 IST  Devyani Khobragade Highly placed sources have told MAIL TODAY that Sangeeta Richard, the maid at the centre of the controversy, was previously employed by a senior US diplomat. Another intriguing part of the unfolding story is that a visa was issued to Richard family-Sangeeta's husband Philip and their two children-and they left the country by an Air India flight on December 10, even as New Delhi was engaging with Washington on the issue. A MAIL TODAY investigation has revealed how the saga unfolded, with the Indian Deputy Consul General finding it difficult even to lodge a missing persons report for Sangeeta Richard with the New York Police Department (NYPD), and how the US ignored India's plea for action against Richard and instead piled pressure on India. MAIL TODAY has accessed official documents to weave the story together. This is how it all went down: NOVEMBER 2012: Sangeeta Richard enters the United States with Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade. JUNE 23, 2013: Richard goes missing. In Delhi, her husband says he has no idea where she is. Richard had some days earlier sought Khobragade's permission to take up another part-time job in New York; it was denied. JUNE 24, 2013: Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) in New York informed, and its help requested in tracing Richard. An intriguing part of the story is how difficult it became for Khobragade to file a Missing Persons Report with the NYPD. It was on the advice of the OFM, Khobragade went to file a missing person report at the police precinct concerned, but was told that she could not since Richard was an adult, and that such a report could only be lodged by a member of her family. When Mr Richard, Sangeeta's husband, was contacted, he refused to file a Missing Person Report, indicating his awareness of something being amiss. JUNE 25, 2013: Unable to file a report, Devyani sends a letter to the police precinct concerned, requesting them to file a missing person report and trace Richard. Sustained efforts resulted in the NYPD seeking inspection of Khobragade's residence. As diplomatic premises are out of bounds for local law enforcement agencies, Khobragade was interviewed in front of the Permanent Mission of India, her residence, and a missing person report filed by the NYPD. JULY 1, 2013: A woman claiming to be the Richard's lawyer calls Khobragade to tell her that Sangeeta would not go to court only if, one, the Indian diplomat signs a 566 form authorising the maid to terminate her employment, and, two, change her visa status from government visa to normal visa, and, three, be compensated for 19 hours of work per day. Khobragade refuses to negotiate on phone, insisting that the caller first identify herself; the caller hangs up. JULY 2, 2013: Khobragade informs the OFM about these developments in writing, seeking NYPD support in ascertaining the identity of the caller and her links with Richard, given that the conversations clearly indicate that the runaway maid has no intention of returning to India and seems keen to extort money by making false accusations. No action is taken. Khobragade files a written complaint with the Delhi Police against Sangeeta Richard and her husband Philip Richard, accusing them of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and asking the police to book them for the offence and recover the maidÂ?fs official passport. JULY 5, 2013: Khobragade files complaint of agaggravated harassment with respect to the phone call received on July 1 for extortion and blackmail. No action taken by NYPD. Michael Phillips, Director (Human Resources) at the US embassy in New Delhi, is called by senior MEA official and briefed about missing maid, reports filed with the US State Department and NYPD, and the FIR filed in India against Sangeeta Richard. The assistance of the State Department and US Embassy is emphatically solicited in locating the maid and sending her back to India to pre-empt this being used as an immigration channel. The US Embassy conveys its understanding and promises to follow-up with the State Department and local authorities. No feedback is received IndiaÂ?fs requests, however. Similar requests were made by the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C. to the State Department in Washington D.C. Lack of cooperation by Philip Richard prompts Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to advise Khobragade on filing a First Information Report in Delhi against the Richard family for wilful deceit and attempt to cheat to illegally immigrate to the US by wrongful means. Based on the MEAÂ?fs advice, Khobragade also filed for an anticipatory anti-suit injunction in the Delhi High Court so as to prevent filing of any case in the US by Richard to avoid ensuing litigation in the US. JULY 8, 2013: Khobragade is called to 'Access Immigration', an immigration lawyer's office, to discuss terms of settlement with Richard. Accompanied by the consulate officers, Khobragade meets Richard whose seeks payment of $10,000, grant of an ordinary Indian passport along with whatever immigration relief is required to stay on in the US on that ordinary passport. Consulate officials tell Richard that she cannot remain in the US under any circumstances without legal authorisation, and that she should return to India as per her contract with Khobragade. Richard is told that any argument over salary or working hours could be settled in the consulate before her return to India. Richard refuses, saying that she wants to remain in the US. Khobragade complains to the NYPD about the demands, but there is no response. Richard's passport is revoked and notice for termination of her personal identity also given to OFM with effect from June 22, 2013. Richard is now staying illegally in the US. Felony / theft charge filed with NYPD against Richard by KhobragadeÂ?fs husband, reporting theft of cash, Blackberry phone, two SIM cards, a metro card (valued at $113) and documents such as contracts, signed receipt book-cum-working hour log. No action taken. JULY 15 & 19, 2013: Philip Richard filed a writ petition against Khobragade and the Union of India, alleging that his wife Sangeeta Richard was in police custody in New York since July 8, 2013, charging the Indian diplomat with 'slave labour'and illegally making Sangeeta sign a 'second contract' with far less pay and perks. The Union of India is accused of not paying according to the requirements of the local law. Richard withdraws his writ petition four days later. JULY 30, 2013: A copy of Philip Richard's writ petition is forwarded to OFM, which states that Sangeeta is in police custody in New York, for producing the maid at the Consulate so she can be repatriated to India as requested by her husband in his writ petition. Consul General is also informed that Richard was last seen at the office of Access Immigration on July 8, 2013. No action taken by the US. SEPTEMBER 4, 2013: US State Department issues a one-sided letter to the Indian Ambassador, projecting the allegations of the maid which are of considerable concern, and asking for the allegations to be probed. It also seeks a voluntary meeting between Khobragade and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security in the State Department as well as proof of payment of minimum wages from the embassy. SEPTEMBER 10, 2013: In Delhi, MEA calls US officials and strongly protests against the tone and content of the letter. SEPTEMBER 20, 2013: Delhi High Court issues an ex-parte ad interim injunction against Philip and Sangeeta Richard, restraining them from initiating any legal action or proceedings against Khobragade in any Court / Tribunal / Forum outside India with regard to her employment. The final hearing in the matter is scheduled December 13, 2013. SEPTEMBER 21, 2013: A reply is sent to the State Department by the Indian Embassy in Washington, rebutting the allegations and bringing out the facts of the case while highlighting the fact that Sangeeta Richard is seeking monetary settlement and a US visa, thereby seeking to subvert both Indian and US laws. The letter also emphasises that the matter is an issue between the Government of India and one of its employees and is not subject to US regulation or adjudication. Assistance of the State Department is sought in locating and repatriating Sangeeta Richard to India. NOVEMBER 19, 2013: Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, New Delhi, issues a nonbailable arrest warrant against Sangeeta Richard. DECEMBER 6, 2013:The arrest warrant issued by the Delhi Metropolitan court is forwarded to the US State Department and the US Embassy in New Delhi, requesting them to instruct the relevant authorities in the US to arrest and repatriate Sangeeta Richard to India through the Consulate in New York, so that due process of law may be prosecuted in India. No action is taken by the US. DECEMBER 12, 2013: Khobragade arrested on the basis of a Second District court warrant for visa fraud as she drops her daughter to school in New York. Immunity is denied under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) for this "felony charge" Bail posted at $250,000, Khobragade's passport is seized, and she is asked not to leave the country or seek another travel document though she can travel within the US after notifying authorities. She is been not to be in touch with Sangeeta Richard. JANUARY 13, 2014: Next date of hearing is announced, but Khobragade's attorney claims he is not free that day and is negotiating another date, which will be known in due course. Pre-trial process commenced on December 16, 2013 where a urine sample was taken by US authorities for drugs testing. US says Indian govt knew all about the case The United States had informed the Indian government about the allegations against Devyani Khobragade, the Deputy Consul General in New York, over three months prior to her arrest last week. A State Department official told Mail Today, "To confirm, the State Department notified the Indian Embassy in writing on September 4. The Department of State advised the Embassy of the Republic of India of allegations of abuse made by an Indian national against the Deputy Consul General of India in New York." This refers to the allegations by Khobragade's former housekeeper and babysitter, who the US Attorney's office in New York has charged was brought in to the US on the basis of fraudulent information given by the Indian diplomat and then paid less than the amount specified in her contract as well as minimum wages in America. The State Department said the notification sent to the embassy was part of official procedure and the department's policy of advising foreign missions of allegations made involving a member of a mission or a family member. Officials at the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC could not be reached to comment on what, if any, action was taken by the Indian government upon receipt of the notification from the State Department. The State Department has clarified Khobragade has consular immunity, which applied only to functions performed in line with her official duties and not to alleged crimes such as visa fraud. She does not have diplomatic immunity, which applies across the board.With the Indian government now reportedly moving to obtain diplomatic immunity for Khobragade, the disclosure of the State Department's prior notification could raise the question as why Indian officials did not anticipate possible action against their diplomat and take action to provide her with diplomatic immunity earlier if they were convinced there was no wrongdoing on her part. On December 5, 25 current and former Russian diplomats in New York and their spouses were charged with defrauding Medicaid, a state-run healthcare program, but none was arrested or prosecuted as the US said they enjoyed diplomatic immunity. By- Indira Kannan in Toronto Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/devyani-khobragade-case-visa-issue-indian-diplomat-arrest/1/331838.htmlKerry regrets ‘events after arrest’ |
| CHARU SUDAN KASTURI |
New Delhi, Dec. 18: US secretary of state John Kerry today called the Indian national security adviser to voice regret while referring to the “events that unfolded” after a diplomat was arrested in New York last week. “As a father of two daughters about the same age as Devyani Khobragade, the secretary empathises with the sensitivities we are hearing from India about the events that unfolded after Ms. Khobragade’s arrest,” state department spokesperson Marie Harf said in a statement. “In his conversation with national security adviser (Shivshankar) Menon, he expressed his regret, as well as his concern that we not allow this unfortunate public issue to hurt our close and vital relationship with India,” Harf added. By “events that unfolded after the arrest”, Kerry appeared to be referring to the strip search of Devyani after she was arrested. Kerry said it is “particularly important” that foreign diplomats serving in the US are accorded respect and dignity “just as we expect our own diplomats should receive overseas”, according to the statement. But the state department added: “The secretary understands very deeply the importance of enforcing our laws and protecting victims, and, like all officials in positions of responsibility inside the US government, expects that laws will be followed by everyone here in our country.” Kerry’s call capped a day on which India accused the US of conspiring with a nanny in her allegations that Devyani committed visa fraud. Officials in Delhi pointed to a series of meetings where India informed the US of its concerns that the nanny, Sangeeta Richard, and her husband were trying to extort money from Devyani, and questioned why America still issued visas that allowed the entire Richard family to flee India. (See chart) Richard’s husband Philip and their children flew to the US on December 10, two days before Devyani’s arrest, despite an FIR registered against him by Delhi police. “There was a conspiracy in which the deputy consul-general was virtually trapped,” external affairs minister Salman Khurshid told an enraged Parliament. “We will bring back the woman diplomat arrested in New York and restore her dignity.” Devyani, who was arrested on the morning of December 12, was on Wednesday moved by India from her post as deputy consul-general in New York to India’s permanent mission at the United Nations, streets away in Manhattan. The move is aimed at shielding her from any fresh attempt at an arrest since diplomats posted at the UN enjoy higher immunity from domestic laws. But no Indian official would comment on any specific motives that could drive an American conspiracy against India. New Delhi’s defence remains restricted to the way Devyani was treated, rather than an unambiguous challenge to allegations of a mismatch between the salary promised to the nanny and that was eventually paid. Officials here have said Indian nannies and household help — called India-based domestic assistants or IBDAs — receive free housing, food, the same medical facilities accessible to diplomats and a trip back to India each year in addition to the cheques deposited in their bank accounts. India contends that these benefits, if monetised, would be far higher than the minimum wage in New York and closer to the figure usually cited in visa documents. Any legal victory for US attorney Preet Bharara, who has listed the charges against Devyani, will set a precedent that could expose multiple present and future Indian diplomats to similar allegations. Indian officials said that unlike most other earlier instances, Devyani has been accused not by individual NGOs but by the US federal government. This, India is suggesting, points to the complicity of the US government with the nanny and a “human rights lobby” that New Delhi has long believed tries to entrap developing nations while ignoring alleged rights violations by the US itself. But Indian officials have not explained one factor: the reason for a US court rejecting an attempt to file an extortion case against Sangeeta. INDIAN VERSION The sequence of events, according to Indian officials June 23, 2013: Sangeeta Richard, the nanny, leaves the Manhattan home of Devyani Khobragade June 24: India informs US officials in New York. From then till early July, Devyani receives multiple calls from people claiming to represent Sangeeta, threatening harassment unless she is compensated. India cancels Sangeeta’s official passport July 5: India summons American officials to South Block to discuss the issue July 8: Sangeeta and Devyani — along with other consulate officials — meet at a Manhattan immigration attorney’s office, where the nanny allegedly demands $10,000 (Rs 6.2 lakh), an ordinary Indian passport and a clean chit. Devyani and the others refuse End-July: Devyani and her husband try to file a case in a New York court accusing Sangeeta of extortion but their petition is rejected. (Indian officials did not list the specific reason behind the rejection) Sept. 17: Sangeeta’s husband Philip and their two children get Indian passports. Indian officials say they did not, at that point, suspect the family was involved in fraud Sept. 21: Delhi High Court passes an injunction barring Sangeeta from filing any criminal or civil charges against Devyani outside India. The US is told — in New Delhi and in Washington October: Devyani’s family files an FIR against Sangeeta and Philip Richard in south Delhi, accusing the nanny of extortion and naming Philip as a “co-conspirator” November: A Delhi court issues a non-bailable warrant against Sangeeta. The US is informed Dec. 10: Philip and their children fly to the US. The FIR doesn’t stop them from flying out — there was no arrest warrant. But the US knew about the FIR. Its visa form specifically asks about pending cases and almost never gives visas in such cases Dec. 12: Devyani is arrested in New York |
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131219/jsp/frontpage/story_17697415.jsp
Searing but laid down by court | |
| K.P. NAYAR | |
Washington, Dec. 18: Diplomat Devyani Khobragade’s strip search, which has caused consternation in India, is a post-arrest procedure that is sanctioned in the US by its highest court. One-and-a-half years ago, after the controversial, often humiliating, practice was challenged at various levels of the American justice system, the matter had reached the US Supreme Court, which pronounced its final decision on those legal challenges. “Every detainee who will be admitted to the general (incarcerated) population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority of five judges on the bench. In a dissent note for the minority of four judges, Justice Stephen Breyer described strip searches as “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy”. Expressing views that would find an echo in India after its deputy consul-general in New York was a victim of strip search following her arrest, these four dissenting justices had opined that such intrusive procedures should be used only when there was good reason to do so. Justice Breyer interpreted the Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution against unreasonable searches as prohibiting strip searches of those detained for minor offences not involving drugs or violence. In instances where there was reason to suspect that detainees were carrying contraband, the minority was also in favour of intrusive searches. The US has the biggest prison population in the world: 13 million. The majority of Supreme Court judges argued that officials with detainees in their custody had to ensure that people who are arrested or sentenced do not smuggle weapons or drugs into facilities where they are held. In America, which has a large homeless population, admission to homeless shelters is preceded by a strip search and a bath for reasons of public health and hygiene. In such facilities and in many detention centres, those brought in like Khobragade are asked to hand over their clothing and have a bath in order to make the stripping appear less intrusive. The case that elevated strip search to the highest court of the land had shades of the Indian diplomat’s treatment. In 2005, Albert Florence was travelling in New Jersey in the passenger seat of a BMW when the police flagged down his car for speeding. A dispute ensued with police citing a pending arrest warrant for Florence even as he insisted that he had paid a fine which triggered the warrant. In the end it turned out that the fine had, indeed, been paid by the accused. Florence spent the next week in two jails where he was strip-searched twice. According to the detainee’s account of the search, he was shorn of all clothes and made to turn around, squat, cough and spread the cheeks of his buttocks while an officer watched. “It was humiliating,” he later said of the experience. Even though the Supreme Court approved of strip searches in minor offences like speeding, riding a bicycle without a bell or driving without a licence, the issue continues to be controversial in America. In at least 10 states, intrusive searches are banned by law unless there is sufficient justification to warrant it. New York, where the Indian diplomat was arrested, is not one of those states. There, strip searches take place after prisoners are visited by outsiders in jails or detention centres. During anti-Iraq war demonstrations, a nun was strip-searched for crossing a police barricade to block the demonstrators although she was not a protester. Such searches may, however, be counterproductive. Justice Breyer cited a study of 23,000 detainees in Orange County, New York, where only one case of contraband was detected during intrusive searches. Illinois is one of the states that prohibit strip-searches unless there is reasonable justification to warrant one. Its law details what constitutes a strip search. “Strip search means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual inspection…,” according to its statute. In New York, DNA samples are also routinely taken after an arrest and fed into a law enforcement database. This would have been done in the case of the Indian diplomat. The protocol of the US Marshals Service, which strip-searched Khobragade, states that officers must visually inspect the front of the body all the way down. It requires the prisoner to “spread legs and bend forward at the waist” so as to enable observation from the rear. |
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131219/jsp/frontpage/story_17697417.jsp