Nimisha Priya’s Execution Put on Hold amid ongoing negotiations in Yemen

Indian nurse Nimisha Priya, who was facing execution in Yemen on July 16 for the murder of a Yemeni national, has been granted a temporary reprieve, her legal counsel confirmed. While the fresh execution date remains undisclosed Indian officials remain in active coordination with Yemeni prison and prosecution authorities. Nimisha was convicted for the 2017 murder of her Yemeni business partner. With her execution scheduled for July 16, intense diplomatic and humanitarian efforts are underway to save her.

The Case of Nimisha Priya

Nimisha Priya moved to Yemen as a nurse in hopes of building a better future. She partnered with a local man, Talal Abdo Mahdi, to open a clinic. However, according to reports, Mahdi allegedly seized the clinic’s revenue, forged documents to portray Nimisha as his wife, and subjected her to abuse. In a desperate attempt to retrieve her passport and escape, Nimisha administered sedatives to Mahdi with the help of a colleague. The dosage proved fatal, and Mahdi died.

In 2020, a Yemeni court sentenced her to death. Since then, the Indian government has tried every diplomatic and legal means to halt her execution. Last week, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the Supreme Court that Yemen’s judiciary has left only one option diyat but the case is seemingly unmoved by either the legal or humanitarian appeals.

What complicates Nimisha’s case further is Yemen’s fragile political environment. The ongoing civil war and fragmented governance structures make diplomatic interventions highly uncertain. Moreover, the deceased’s family reportedly remains emotionally devastated, further reducing the chances of forgiveness even if larger sums of money are offered.

What is Blood Money in Islamic Law?

Blood money, or diyat, is a legal provision in Islamic criminal jurisprudence that allows the family of a murder victim to pardon the accused in exchange for monetary compensation. Rooted in the Quran, the principle of diyat is part of a broader legal framework that includes qisas, or retributive justice. According to Islamic texts, if a person is murdered intentionally, the victim’s family has three choices: seek capital punishment (qisas), forgive the accused unconditionally, or accept diyat.

Historically, blood money evolved as a mechanism to end cycles of tribal violence, allo wing for reparation instead of revenge. The Prophet Muhammad formalized this process in the 7th century. According to NDTV Quranic verses (Chapter 4, Verse 92) reference the practice: “…whoever kills a believer by mistake must pay blood money to the family of the deceased…” Traditionally paid in camels or livestock, diyat today is a negotiated sum of money—often determined by the economic status of both parties and local customs.

In modern legal systems influenced by Sharia law—such as in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and Pakistan—diyat remains legally valid. However, it is applicable only when the victim’s family consents, and is usually only considered for “protected persons”—Muslims, Christians, Jews, or Zoroastrians.

Indians Who Escaped the Gallows Through Blood Money

Though rare and emotionally charged, cases where Indian citizens were saved by diyat exist. Over the last two decades, multiple Indian nationals have narrowly escaped execution in Gulf countries after successful negotiations involving blood money:

• 2006, Saudi Arabia: Abdul Rahim, accused of accidentally killing a minor, escaped the death sentence after paying ₹34 crore, thanks to fundraising by the Malayali community.
• 2009, UAE: Seventeen Indians convicted of killing a Pakistani man were released after paying about ₹4 crore.
• 2013, Saudi Arabia: King Abdullah personally paid around ₹1.5 crore to save Bengaluru truck driver Saleem Basha after he accidentally killed nine people.
• 2017, UAE: Ten Indians facing execution were pardoned after blood money of 200,000 dirhams (approx. ₹47 lakh) was paid.
• 2019, Kuwait: An Indian was saved from the gallows by paying ₹30 lakh, which reduced the sentence to life imprisonment.
• 2023, UAE: A critically injured Indian survivor in a tragic bus crash received ₹11 crore as compensation from the offending party.

These cases demonstrate that while emotionally and financially complex, diyat remains a valid route to justice, especially in Gulf countries. However, it is contingent on the victim’s family’s consent, which cannot be coerced or mandated—even by the state.

Legal Limits and Diplomatic Dead-Ends

The Indian government has walked a tightrope in Nimisha Priya’s case. It exhausted diplomatic channels, coordinated with the Yemeni authorities, and made significant financial offers. However, the law in Yemen is clear: only the victim’s family can pardon her. The Indian Supreme Court acknowledged this limitation and observed that the situation is now out of India’s legal hands.

It’s also worth noting that while diyat has been used to rescue male Indian workers in accidental cases, Nimisha’s case involves premeditation—albeit under duress—and a sensitive cross-national dynamic involving gender, culture, and politics. Moreover, the offer of a staggering ₹8.6 crore, the highest ever by India in a blood money case, underscores the seriousness with which her case was treated.

A Life in Limbo

Now behind the scenes, Sufi scholar Sheikh Habib Umar bin Hafiz intervening on humanitarian grounds, reportedly at the request of influential Kerala-based Sunni cleric Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar. However, the victim’s family has not yet agreed to grant a pardon or accept blood money.

Unless Mahdi’s family undergoes a sudden change of heart, or Yemen’s judiciary grants a last-minute reprieve—both highly unlikely given the context her execution may proceed as scheduled. The case not only spotlights the complexities of diyat in Islamic law but also raises urgent questions about the boundaries of international diplomacy, justice for migrant workers, and the need for better legal safeguards for Indians abroad.

While blood money has saved many Indians from the gallows, Nimisha’s case is a stark reminder that forgiveness cannot be bought unless compassion coexists with justice.