Introduction: A Shocking Case from Gokarna
In a case that reads almost like a movie script, the Supreme Court of India on October 6, 2025, pulled up a man claiming to be the father of two minor Russian girls who were found living in a cave near Gokarna, Karnataka earlier this year. The man, Dror Shlomo Goldstein, approached the Court to stop their repatriation to Russia—but the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi wasn’t convinced.
The Supreme Court’s sharp remarks, especially Justice Kant’s pointed question — “What were you doing when your children lived in a cave?” — underscored the Court’s frustration with what it viewed as a publicity-driven and baseless plea.
The Background: Russian Family Found Living in Isolation
The story first surfaced in July 2025, when local authorities in Karnataka discovered a Russian woman, Nina Kutina, and her two daughters living in a cave in the Ramatirtha Hills near Gokarna. Reports suggested that the family had run out of money, overstayed their visa, and had been living there for nearly two months without shelter or documentation.
Authorities soon stepped in, and the Union Government initiated steps for their repatriation to Russia, in coordination with the Russian Embassy. The Karnataka High Court upheld the government’s decision, citing humanitarian grounds and the best interests of the children.
The Supreme Court Hearing: “What Is Your Right? Who Are You?”
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, Goldstein claimed he was the biological father of the children and asked the Court to restrain the Union Government from allowing their travel back to Russia. His counsel also sought time to serve a copy of the petition to the government.
However, the bench was unconvinced. Justice Surya Kant asked bluntly,
“What is your right? Who are you? Please show us any official document that declares you as the father.”
The judge went further to question,
“Why should we not direct your deportation?”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi added his own sharp observation:
“Publicity litigation… What were you doing when your children were living in a cave?”
The Court was evidently displeased with the petitioner’s lack of documentary proof and inconsistent claims. The man reportedly stayed in Goa while the woman and children lived in extreme conditions in Gokarna—raising doubts about his intentions.
Faced with this severe judicial criticism, the petitioner eventually withdrew his plea, which the Court allowed.
Before closing the matter, Justice Kant remarked on a broader concern:
“This country has become a haven… anybody comes and stays.”
Child Welfare at the Heart of the Judgment
The underlying question in this case was: What is truly in the best interest of the children?
The Karnataka High Court, in its earlier ruling, had carefully examined this aspect. It found that:
- The mother and daughters were living in isolation, without access to basic facilities.
- The petitioner failed to explain how they ended up in such dire circumstances.
- The Russian government had issued emergency travel documents (ETDs) for the family, valid only till October 9, 2025.
- The mother had voluntarily expressed her willingness to return to Russia with her children.
Given these findings, the High Court concluded that repatriation was in the best interest of the children. The Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere essentially reaffirmed this reasoning.
The Legal Arguments: Rights, Responsibility, and Jurisdiction
Goldstein’s petition cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, arguing that the authorities must ensure the children’s welfare and not rush their deportation. He also claimed that he had been financially supporting the mother and children “for a long time.”
However, the State and Union Government countered these claims by presenting the DNA report of one of the children and evidence of coordination with the Russian authorities. The Russian Embassy’s readiness to facilitate their return, along with the mother’s explicit consent, weakened the petitioner’s case.
From a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court’s response aligned with the principle of non-interference in consular repatriation processes, especially when both the home country and the individual involved agree to the transfer.
A Larger Issue: Foreign Nationals Overstaying in India
Justice Kant’s closing remark—“This country has become a haven… anybody comes and stays”—reflects a broader judicial concern over foreign nationals overstaying visas or misusing legal loopholes.
In recent years, India has seen an increase in such cases, particularly involving spiritual tourism and long-term overstays in regions like Goa, Himachal Pradesh, and Karnataka.
While the humanitarian aspect of such cases often draws public sympathy, the legal position remains clear: overstaying a visa violates the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, making the individual liable for deportation.
Legal Takeaway: Balancing Compassion and Compliance
This case is a textbook example of how Indian courts navigate the balance between compassion and compliance. On one hand, the judiciary empathizes with vulnerable individuals—especially mothers and children stranded abroad—but on the other, it upholds the sovereignty of Indian law and international cooperation protocols.
The best interest of the child remains the cornerstone principle, echoing precedents such as:
- Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) — emphasizing state responsibility in inter-country adoption cases.
- Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla (2010) — highlighting that custody and relocation decisions must prioritize child welfare over parental rights.
By allowing repatriation in this case, the Court reinforced that emotional claims cannot override legal realities.
Public and Legal Community Response
The incident sparked widespread attention online, especially after the Court’s pointed remarks went viral. Many praised the judiciary’s no-nonsense stance, while others debated the humanitarian dimensions of sending a family back amid unclear circumstances.
The legal community largely agreed that the petitioner’s lack of credible documentation weakened his case and that the Supreme Court’s approach was both lawful and pragmatic.
Conclusion: A Reminder of Accountability
The Supreme Court’s rebuke—“What were you doing when your children lived in a cave?”—wasn’t just directed at one man. It symbolized a larger call for parental accountability, legal responsibility, and truthfulness in litigation.
In a world where emotional claims can sometimes overshadow facts, the Court’s approach reinforced the message that the judiciary stands for reason, not rhetoric.
Ultimately, this case reminds us that child welfare must be grounded in reality, not sentiment—and that India’s courts continue to strike that delicate balance with clarity and conviction.
Also Read
