India-UK Extradition Treaty<\/strong>.\u00a0He has two months to make the decision.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nAbout Extradition<\/b><\/h5>\n
Extradition is the formal process of one state surrendering an individual to another state for prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in the requesting country\u2019s jurisdiction.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- It typically is enabled by a bilateral or multilateral treaty.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Other Related terms<\/b>:<\/span>\n
\n- Deportation<\/b>: Under this, a person is ordered to leave a country and is not allowed to return to that country.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Exclusion<\/b>: In exclusion, a person is prohibited from staying in a particular part of a sovereign state.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Repartition<\/b>: It is the process that enables the transfer of foreign prisoners to their native country where they can serve their remaining part of their sentences.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Extradition in India\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n\n- In India, the extradition of a fugitive (accused or convicted) is governed by the Extradition Act,1962.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
- The extradition of a fugitive depends upon the treaties\/conventions\/arrangements entered into by India with other countries<\/span><\/li>\n
- The Ministry of External Affairs<\/strong> is the nodal body for extradition matters in India.<\/span><\/li>\n
- At present, India has bilateral extradition treaties with 43 countries and extradition arrangements with 10 countries.<\/span>\n
\n- Extradition arrangements are non-binding and do not impose any legal obligations on party states. On the other hand, treaty mechanisms are binding.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- India is also a party to several multilateral conventions. They provide a binding extradition framework for curbing transnational crimes such as drug trafficking, terrorism, and aircraft hijacking.<\/span>\n
\n- Based on this an extradition request can be made under:\u00a0<\/span>\n
\n- United Nations Convention Against Corruption<\/strong> (2003),\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
- United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000)<\/strong> etc.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Requests for the surrender of fugitives can also be made to non-treaty states. These requests will be considered in accordance with the laws and procedures of the foreign state.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Principles Governing Extradition<\/b><\/h5>\n
Apart from the P<\/strong>rinciple of Specialty, <\/b>there are other principles as well in extradition. This includes,<\/p>\n\n- Firstly, Principle of Dual Criminality:<\/b> This requires that the offence that the fugitive is alleged to have committed, should be an offence both in the requesting as well as the requested state.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Secondly, Principle of Reciprocity:<\/b> Countries must show reciprocity in the exchange for fugitives between requesting and requested State.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Thirdly, Principle of Competence<\/b>: The requested state must be satisfied that the requesting state has a right to prosecute the fugitive.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Fourthly, Principle of proportionality between offence and sentence<\/b>: Punishment for a particular crime should not be excessively harsh or inhuman upon the fugitive. European countries generally don\u2019t extradite when the requesting country has the potential to inflict capital punishment on the fugitive.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Fifthly, Principle of relative Seriousness of the offence<\/b>: Extradition is usually permissible only for relatively more serious offences, and not for trivial misdemeanours or petty offences.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Status of extradition in India<\/b><\/h5>\n\n- India has been able to extradite back many of the fugitive offenders in the past. However, failures were also witnessed in the case of many offenders.\u00a0<\/span>\n
\n- Successful cases of Extradition:<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>\n
\n- AgustaWestland chopper deal <\/b>co-accused Rajiv Saxena was extradited from the United Arab Emirates in Jan 2019.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Mohammed Yahya, who faced cases of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, was extradited from Indonesia on October 12, 2018.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Vinay Mittal, who faces cases of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, was extradited from Indonesia on September 9, 2018.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Chhota Rajan<\/b> was extradited from Indonesia on November 6, 2015, on charges of murder and kidnapping.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Abu Salem <\/b>was extradited from Portugal in 2005 to face trial in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Ongoing extradition cases<\/b>: <\/span>\n
\n- India is in the process of extraditing Mehul Choksi and Vijay Mallya from the U.K. for their criminal charges of financial frauds. <\/span><\/li>\n
- Similarly, Tahawwur Rana, a key accused in the 26\/11 Mumbai terror attack<\/strong>, will soon be extradited from the US.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Failed:<\/b>\n
\n- India failed to Extradite Lalit Modi ( IPL Betting Case<\/strong>) from the UK <\/span><\/li>\n
- Similarly, India also failed to extradite David Headley ( Conspirator of 2008 Mumbai attacks) from the US<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Need for Extradition\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n\n- Sovereign constraint:<\/b> Since the territorial constraints stop the victim state to effectively exercise its jurisdiction, extradition alone offers the legal avenue to overcome the jurisdictional hardship.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Upholding Justice: <\/b>Bringing back offenders from foreign countries is essential for providing timely justice and grievance redressal.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Provides a sense of gratification:<\/b> Punishment of the criminal in the same country in which the crime is committed provides a sense of gratification and security for the public of that country.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Act as deterrence<\/b>: It serves as a deterrent against offenders who consider escape as an easy way to subvert India\u2019s justice system.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Issues with Extradition<\/b><\/h5>\n\n- Delayed Response by Indian Agencies: <\/b>This sometimes gives an impression that the requesting state is not serious about extraditing the fugitive. It results in the denial of an extradition request by the extraditing state.\u00a0<\/span>\n
\n- For example, the extradition request against former IPL chief Lalit Modi was filed after a decade.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Poor Prison Conditions: <\/b>The Indian prisons fall short of desired facilities like quality food, bedding, health facilities, etc. This discourages western nations from extraditing fugitives on grounds of human rights violations.<\/span>\n
\n- Eg – Karamjit Singh Chahal (charges of separatism), Sanjeev Chawla (illegal betting) and Kim Davy (terrorism) escaped extradition due to poor prison conditions.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Disregard to extradition clauses:<\/b> India was criticized by Portugal for the violation of the Principle of Specialty. <\/b><\/strong>As India imposed additional cases on Abu Saleem. The same is also feasible in the current extradition cases also. This damages India’s image for upholding extradition laws, especially from the EU.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Less number of bilateral extradition treaties<\/b>: India has a fewer number (43) of bilateral extradition treaties compared to other countries. The US and the UK, for example, have extradition treaties with over 100 countries each.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Political Nature<\/b>: It is often argued that extradition is as much a political process as it is a judicial one. Therefore, it sometimes gets rejection on political grounds in spite of passing the judicial test.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\n
\n- Eg – <\/span>Warren Martin Anderson was not extradited <\/b>by the U.S to India in spite of being the CEO of Union Carbide Corporation. UCC was the parent company of UC India limited that was responsible for the Bhopal Gas tragedy in 1984.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Double standards for Wealthy individuals:<\/b> Countries are sometimes accused of having a soft corner for wealthy fugitives. For instance, Jan Marsalek of the Wirecard scandal and former Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn were not extradited by Russia and Lebanon respectively.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Double jeopardy<\/b>: The \u201cdouble jeopardy\u201d clause debars punishment for the same crime twice. This is the primary reason why India has been unable to extradite David Headley from the US.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n