Extradition Requests
Extradition is the legal process by which one country surrenders a person to another country for prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in the requesting country. In India, extradition is governed primarily by:
The Extradition Act, 1962
Bilateral or multilateral treaties with other countries
Key Principles in Extradition
Dual criminality – The act must be a crime in both countries.
Political offences exception – Persons accused of political crimes are generally not extraditable.
Prima facie case – Courts examine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify extradition.
Non-discrimination – Extradition cannot be refused based on race, religion, nationality, or political opinion.
Human rights considerations – Extradition may be denied if it would expose the person to torture, inhumane treatment, or death penalty (in some cases).
Key Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws
1. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (Supreme Court, 1999)
Facts:
The case involved the extradition of a person from India to a foreign country under a bilateral treaty. The accused argued that procedural lapses had occurred in submitting the extradition request.
Court’s Interpretation:
Extradition can be refused if procedural formalities under the Extradition Act or treaty are violated.
Courts emphasized that judicial review ensures compliance with legal safeguards before surrendering a person.
Principle:
Extradition requests must strictly comply with legal and treaty requirements.
Importance:
Establishes that procedural safeguards are crucial for protecting the rights of the person sought for extradition.
2. Abdul Karim Telgi v. State of Maharashtra (2007)
Facts:
Telgi, wanted in India for a multi-crore stamp paper fraud, fled abroad. A foreign country requested his extradition.
Court’s Interpretation:
Indian courts held that dual criminality is essential.
The offence must be recognized as a crime in both jurisdictions; Indian courts cannot extradite for acts which are not crimes in India.
Principle:
Dual criminality is a cornerstone of extradition law.
Importance:
Ensures that a person is not punished for acts that are not criminal in the country of surrender.
3. State v. Sher Singh (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 1971)
Facts:
The accused claimed that the offence was political in nature to avoid extradition to another country.
Court’s Interpretation:
Extradition can be refused if the offence is essentially political.
The court distinguished between common crimes with political overtones and pure political crimes, and only the latter may attract exemption.
Principle:
Political offences are generally non-extraditable.
Importance:
Protects individuals from being extradited for politically motivated charges.
4. In Re: Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case (1991)
Facts:
Certain accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case fled to foreign countries. India sought extradition under treaties.
Court’s Interpretation:
Supreme Court observed that prima facie evidence must exist showing the accused’s involvement.
Courts cannot pass judgment on guilt but must ensure there is a credible case before surrendering the accused.
Principle:
Judicial review ensures that extradition is not arbitrary.
Importance:
Balances state’s interest in law enforcement with protection of individual rights.
5. A.G. of India v. Feliciano (Bombay High Court, 1976)
Facts:
Feliciano was sought by a foreign country for alleged drug trafficking. He claimed extradition would violate human rights.
Court’s Interpretation:
The court considered the treatment the person would face in the requesting country.
If extradition would expose a person to torture, unfair trial, or death penalty without assurance, courts may refuse surrender.
Principle:
Human rights safeguards can override extradition treaties.
Importance:
Introduces a humanitarian check in extradition proceedings.
6. State of West Bengal v. Subrata Roy (2003)
Facts:
Subrata Roy was sought in India from a foreign country for economic offences. There was a dispute about whether the offence was extraditable.
Court’s Interpretation:
Court reinforced that financial and white-collar crimes are extraditable, provided dual criminality exists.
Minor procedural deficiencies are not sufficient to deny extradition if the person is prima facie involved in serious crime.
Principle:
Serious economic offences are extraditable under the Extradition Act.
Importance:
Expands the scope of extraditable offences beyond violent crimes.
7. Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 1995)
Facts:
Accused claimed that the extradition request was mala fide—filed for harassment.
Court’s Interpretation:
Courts must examine whether the extradition request is genuine and not for harassment.
Mere suspicion of political or personal vendetta can be a ground to refuse extradition.
Principle:
Extradition must be bona fide, and courts act as a safeguard against misuse.
Importance:
Prevents abuse of extradition treaties for personal or political reasons.
Summary of Judicial Principles in Extradition
| Principle | Case(s) | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Dual Criminality | Abdul Karim Telgi | Act must be a crime in both countries |
| Political Offence Exception | Sher Singh | Political crimes are usually non-extraditable |
| Prima Facie Case | Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case | Courts ensure credible evidence exists |
| Human Rights Protection | Feliciano | No extradition if risk of torture/unfair trial exists |
| Bona Fide Request | Mahender Chawla | Requests must be genuine, not malicious |
| Procedural Compliance | Dr. Praful B. Desai | Treaties and Extradition Act formalities must be followed |
RELATED Blog
comments