Case Law Analysis On Extradition Disputes

17 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Introduction: Extradition

Extradition is the legal process by which one country formally requests another to surrender an individual accused or convicted of a crime in the requesting country’s jurisdiction.
It involves international cooperation in criminal law, balancing sovereignty, human rights, and the rule of law.

Legal Framework in India

The Extradition Act, 1962

Governs surrender and return of fugitives between India and other countries.

Sections 3–34 outline procedures for treaties, evidence, and political offenses.

Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India

Directs the State to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs)

India has signed extradition treaties with over 40 nations and arrangements with many others.

Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues in Extradition Disputes

Dual Criminality Principle – The offense must be a crime in both requesting and requested countries.

Political Offense Exception – Individuals cannot be extradited for political crimes.

Human Rights Considerations – Courts ensure that extradition does not lead to torture or unfair trial.

Sufficiency of Evidence – Courts assess whether prima facie evidence exists for extradition.

Judicial Review – Extradition decisions by the executive can be challenged before courts.

Case Studies

Case 1: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra (2012, Supreme Court of India)

Facts: Abu Salem, accused in the 1993 Bombay blasts, was extradited from Portugal to India in 2005. He argued that India violated extradition conditions by charging him with offenses not listed in the extradition treaty.

Issue: Whether India breached the “rule of specialty” by trying him for additional offenses.

Judgment: Supreme Court held India partially violated the rule of specialty; only charges approved by Portugal could proceed.

Significance: Reinforced that extradited persons can only be tried for offenses for which extradition was granted.

Principle Applied: Rule of Specialty under Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962.

Case 2: Romesh Chandra v. State (AIR 1955 Calcutta High Court)

Facts: A British national sought to prevent extradition from India for alleged embezzlement in the UK.

Issue: Whether dual criminality and treaty conditions were satisfied.

Judgment: Court upheld extradition, ruling that misappropriation is a punishable offense in both countries.

Significance: Established the dual criminality principle as mandatory in Indian extradition proceedings.

Case 3: State of West Bengal v. Jugal Kishore More (1969 SC)

Facts: Accused faced charges in Nepal for fraud; Indian authorities detained him under the Extradition Act.

Issue: Whether absence of a formal treaty with Nepal barred extradition.

Judgment: Supreme Court held that extradition can proceed based on reciprocal arrangements even without a formal treaty under Section 3(4) of the Act.

Significance: Expanded India’s extradition framework to non-treaty countries based on comity and reciprocity.

Case 4: Nirav Modi Extradition Case (2021, UK Westminster Magistrates’ Court)

Facts: Indian businessman Nirav Modi was accused of ₹13,000 crore Punjab National Bank fraud and sought asylum in the UK.

Issues:

Whether Indian prison conditions met human rights standards.

Whether there was prima facie evidence of fraud and money laundering.

Judgment: UK court approved extradition, stating that evidence was sufficient and Indian prisons met minimum standards.

Significance: Demonstrated balance between human rights protection and international cooperation against economic crimes.

Case 5: Vijay Mallya Extradition Case (2018–2022, UK High Court)

Facts: Business tycoon Vijay Mallya accused of financial fraud and default on bank loans fled to the UK.

Issues: Allegations of political motivation, poor jail conditions, and unfair trial.

Evidence: Detailed forensic and financial documents from Indian agencies.

Judgment: UK court upheld India’s extradition request, finding sufficient prima facie evidence of fraud.

Significance: Reinforced that economic crimes are valid grounds for extradition and not protected by political offense exceptions.

Case 6: Charles Sobhraj v. State (1978, Delhi High Court)

Facts: Serial killer Charles Sobhraj faced multiple murder charges in different countries.

Issue: Legality of extradition to Thailand for offenses committed abroad.

Judgment: Delhi High Court upheld extradition, recognizing international cooperation in crime suppression.

Significance: Confirmed that extradition does not violate Article 21 (right to life) if due process is followed.

Case 7: Government of India v. L.M. Sharma (1996)

Facts: Extradition sought for a Canadian accused of financial crimes in India.

Issue: Sufficiency of evidence for prima facie case.

Judgment: Court ruled extradition valid, emphasizing that evidence need not meet trial standards but must show reasonable suspicion.

Significance: Clarified the prima facie evidence threshold in extradition proceedings.

Case 8: Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra (2009, Supreme Court)

Facts: A non-resident Indian challenged his detention pending extradition to the UAE for financial fraud.

Issue: Whether he could be detained without a formal extradition order.

Judgment: Supreme Court held that detention was invalid without adherence to Extradition Act procedures.

Significance: Safeguarded personal liberty under Article 21 and reinforced procedural compliance.

Key Principles from the Cases

Principle	Description	Illustrative Case
Dual Criminality	The act must be punishable in both countries.	Romesh Chandra v. State (1955)
Rule of Specialty	Extradited person can only be tried for approved offenses.	Abu Salem v. State (2012)
Reciprocity Principle	Extradition possible even without formal treaty.	Jugal Kishore More (1969)
Prima Facie Evidence Standard	Evidence must show reasonable suspicion, not full guilt.	L.M. Sharma (1996)
Human Rights Safeguards	Courts ensure no torture or unfair trial after extradition.	Nirav Modi (2021)
Judicial Oversight	Courts can review executive decisions under Article 226.	Bhavesh Lakhani (2009)

Conclusion

Extradition law embodies the intersection of domestic criminal justice and international cooperation.
While courts support extradition for grave offenses, they also uphold:

Human rights protection,

Procedural fairness, and

Sovereign equality of states.

Indian jurisprudence, guided by cases like Abu Salem and Vijay Mallya, shows a clear evolution toward global accountability balanced with constitutional safeguards.