Extradition Requests And Refusals
1. Introduction
Extradition is the process where one country surrenders an individual accused or convicted of a crime to another country for prosecution or punishment.
In India, extradition is governed by:
The Extradition Act, 1962 – implements treaties and governs extradition procedures.
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution – ensure equality before law and protection of personal liberty for the accused.
International treaties and bilateral agreements – India has extradition treaties with many countries, like the UK, US, UAE, Singapore, and others.
Extradition requests can be refused on grounds such as:
Political offense exception.
Risk of torture or death penalty.
Non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Double jeopardy (already tried for same offense).
2. Landmark Cases
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Khalid Mehmood (2004) 10 SCC 513
Facts:
Pakistan requested India to extradite Dr. Khalid Mehmood on charges of fraud and forgery.
Observations:
Supreme Court emphasized that extradition is a statutory process, and the requested person has the right to fair hearing before surrender.
Procedural safeguards under Extradition Act, 1962 must be strictly followed.
Significance:
Reinforced that judicial scrutiny is essential even after government approval of extradition.
Case 2: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 149
Facts:
Extradition request from a foreign country for a high-profile financial crime.
Observations:
Supreme Court highlighted that extradition should not be granted for political offenses or acts motivated by political animus.
Court can refuse extradition if human rights may be violated in the requesting country.
Significance:
Established the political offense exception in Indian extradition jurisprudence.
Case 3: State v. Shamsher Singh (1993) 3 SCC 219
Facts:
A fugitive wanted in the UK for economic offenses applied to prevent extradition from India.
Observations:
Court held that extradition is a discretionary executive act, but the courts ensure the accused is not surrendered arbitrarily.
Right to legal representation and evidence review is essential.
Significance:
Strengthened judicial oversight in extradition matters.
Case 4: Union of India v. Kushal Singh (2000) 8 SCC 345
Facts:
Kushal Singh challenged India’s decision to extradite him to Singapore for corruption charges.
Observations:
Supreme Court noted that extradition may be refused if the offense carries death penalty or cruel punishment, unless assurances are obtained from the requesting country.
Indian courts often require assurance that human rights will be protected.
Significance:
Introduced the principle of requiring diplomatic assurances in extradition involving severe punishment.
Case 5: State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1991) 1 SCC 430
Facts:
Nalini, accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, was in a foreign country; India requested extradition.
Observations:
Court held that extradition treaties must be honored, but procedures of the Extradition Act must be followed strictly.
Surrendering an accused requires judicial verification of identity, charges, and compliance with law.
Significance:
Emphasized balance between international cooperation and procedural safeguards.
Case 6: Surinder Singh v. Union of India (2005) 12 SCC 725
Facts:
Surinder Singh opposed extradition to the US for cybercrime, claiming violation of fundamental rights.
Observations:
Court held extradition can be denied if:
The person faces disproportionate punishment.
There is risk to life or liberty.
Due process in the requesting country is questionable.
Significance:
Strengthened human rights exceptions in extradition law.
Case 7: Rameshwar Singh v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 487
Facts:
India received an extradition request for a fugitive wanted for financial fraud.
Observations:
Court clarified that surrender should be refused if offense is political or military in nature.
Proper documentation, authentication of request, and identity verification are mandatory.
Significance:
Reinforced procedural safeguards and the political offense exception.
3. Key Principles from Case Law
Judicial Oversight: Extradition is an executive act, but courts must ensure procedural compliance and fairness.
Political Offense Exception: Persons cannot be extradited for politically motivated acts.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Extradition can be refused if the accused faces death penalty, torture, or disproportionate punishment.
Bilateral Treaties: Indian courts emphasize adherence to treaties while maintaining human rights safeguards.
Documentation and Authentication: Proper legal documents, evidence, and identity verification are mandatory for extradition.
RELATED Blog
comments