South Asian migrant workers in the Gulf remain legally vulnerable despite their economic importance. Examine the diplomatic and institutional tools available to countries of origin to protect them.

The Gulf employs millions of South Asians whose remittances support their home economies. Yet the legal risks they face are severe. Saudi Arabia executed a record 356 people in 2025 [2], and UN experts have warned that migrants make up a disproportionate share of those sentenced to death for drug offences [3]. Countries of origin therefore need several layers of protection.

Roots of vulnerability

• Kafala-type sponsorship ties a worker's legal status to the employer, which weakens their bargaining power.
• Language barriers and low legal literacy put migrants at a disadvantage in foreign courts.
• Speech offences can carry extreme penalties. Sri Lankan engineer Anojan Sivarasa was sentenced to death over a Facebook post deemed blasphemous [1].

Diplomatic tools

• Consular access under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) allows officials to visit detainees and monitor trials.
• Quiet, case-specific diplomacy: Sri Lanka sent a President's Counsel to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia's Supreme Court set aside the death sentence and sent the case back to the trial court in October 2026 [1].
• Pleas for remission and amnesty made by diplomatic missions [4].
• Multilateral advocacy: sending countries can press the ICCPR Article 6 rule limiting the death penalty to the "most serious crimes" [2] at forums such as the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review. They can also coordinate through regional groupings such as the Colombo Process.

Institutional tools

• Regulating migration before departure: under the Emigration Act, 1983, the eMigrate portal links the Protectors of Emigrants, Indian missions, recruiters and insurers [6].
• Welfare funds: the Indian Community Welfare Fund (ICWF) pays for means-tested legal aid and interpreters [5].
• Prisoner-transfer treaties: India has signed these with 35 countries [4].

Gaps

• The prisoner-transfer treaties exclude death-row prisoners [4].
• Pro bono lawyers are arranged only "where available" [4], and Indian missions do not fight court cases on behalf of nationals [5].
• MEA publishes no data on how many Indians face the death penalty abroad [4].
• Leverage is limited because Saudi Arabia is not a party to the ICCPR.

Way forward

• Senior Indian lawyers working with local counsel in every capital case abroad, following Sri Lanka's model.
• Publishing data on Indians on death row abroad, so Parliament can check whether help is reaching them.

Countries of origin have workable tools, but these are applied case by case and depend on the host state's goodwill. They should combine quiet diplomacy, to save individuals, with multilateral advocacy, to change the laws themselves. That would make labour mobility safe and fair, in line with SDG target 10.7 on orderly, safe and responsible migration.