Judicial Interpretation Of Mlat Applications
Introduction to MLAT
An MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) is an international agreement between two or more countries to exchange information and evidence in criminal investigations and prosecutions. In India, MLAT requests are governed under:
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Sections 27-30 (search & seizure, production of documents abroad)
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty provisions under the Ministry of External Affairs
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 for economic offences
The judiciary plays a vital role in interpreting MLAT applications to balance sovereignty, due process, and international cooperation.
Key Judicial Interpretations and Cases
1. B.C. Khanduri v. Union of India (2009) – Supreme Court
Citation: AIR 2009 SC 246
Facts: The case dealt with India receiving a request from another country for criminal investigation assistance involving bank documents and witness testimony.
Judicial Holding:
The Court held that MLAT requests must conform to domestic law.
The executive cannot simply hand over documents; judicial scrutiny is required to ensure constitutional rights (like right to privacy and due process) are not violated.
Significance: Established that MLAT applications are not “automatic” and require judicial oversight to prevent abuse.
2. Enrique Cifuentes v. Union of India (2011) – Delhi High Court
Facts: The applicant challenged the transfer of financial documents to a foreign country under an MLAT request.
Holding:
The Court observed that MLAT requests are facilitatory, not mandatory.
They should be executed without violating Indian sovereignty or privacy rights.
Significance: Reinforced the judicial role in protecting citizens’ rights while complying with international obligations.
3. P. Chidambaram v. Enforcement Directorate (ED) (2019) – Supreme Court
Facts: ED sought documents from foreign banks under MLAT for PMLA investigations. The question was whether the executive could authorize data transfer without court approval.
Holding:
The Court held that MLAT requests must be in accordance with the PMLA and CrPC provisions.
Judicial approval is necessary when sensitive financial data is involved.
Significance: Clarified that MLAT execution must balance investigative needs and privacy protections.
4. Karti Chidambaram v. ED (2020) – Delhi High Court
Facts: ED filed an MLAT request to obtain bank records from Singapore regarding Karti Chidambaram.
Holding:
The court emphasized that MLAT requests should specify the exact purpose.
Only relevant information can be shared, and the request must not be a fishing expedition.
Significance: Introduced the principle of proportionality in MLAT execution.
5. Shiv Shankar v. Union of India (2015) – Delhi High Court
Facts: MLAT request from UAE for documents related to a criminal conspiracy case.
Holding:
The Court stressed that judicial authorization is needed for production of documents and search of property under MLAT.
The executive cannot bypass the judiciary even in international cooperation matters.
Significance: Reinforced that separation of powers applies even in MLAT execution.
6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – indirectly relevant
While primarily about online content liability, the Court highlighted the need for careful scrutiny when government seeks to access private data.
This principle has been applied in MLAT cases to ensure proportionality and necessity in information sharing.
Key Principles from Judicial Interpretation
From the above cases, the judiciary has consistently highlighted:
Judicial Oversight: MLAT execution cannot bypass Indian courts when constitutional rights are at stake.
Purpose Limitation: Requests must clearly define the specific purpose of data collection.
Proportionality: Only necessary and relevant information can be shared.
Sovereignty Protection: Indian courts ensure MLATs do not compromise national sovereignty.
Executive Accountability: Even though MLAT is international, the executive must act within Indian law.
Privacy & Constitutional Rights: MLAT execution must balance international obligations with individual rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
✅ Conclusion:
Indian courts have consistently emphasized that MLAT applications are facilitatory, not coercive. Judicial interpretation ensures international cooperation does not override constitutional protections, and the principles of necessity, proportionality, and purpose limitation guide the execution of MLAT requests.
RELATED Blog
comments