Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EXTRADITION
EXTRADITION
EXTRADITION
A project report submitted as a part of internal assessment of the course B.Com. LL.B.
(Hons.) in the subject of PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW for the session 2022-23.
263/19
Section E
P a g e 1 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The detailed project on the topic of “Extradition” would not have been possible without the
kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my gratitude to all of them.
I am highly indebted to Dr. Gurpreet Kaur for her guidance and constant help as well as for
providing necessary information regarding the project and also for her support in completing
the project.
I would also like to express my gratitude to my parents and friends for their kind cooperation
and encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.
-MEHAK
P a g e 2 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
INDEX
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 4
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 16
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 17
P a g e 3 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
INTRODUCTION
International extradition is the surrender by one nation to another, for trial and punishment,
of person accused or convicted of an offence within the jurisdiction of the latter. A request
for extradition is generally initiated against a fugitive criminal, who is formally accused of,
or is charged with, or is convicted of an extradition sentence.
In Oppenheim’s International Law, the expression extradition has been defined as follows:
Extradition is the delivery of an accused or a convicted individual to the State where he/she
is accused of or has been convicted of a crime, by the State on whose territory he/she happens
for the time to be.
Thus, in nutshell, extraditionmay be defined as: the act of sending, by authority of law, a
person accused of a crime to a foreign jurisdiction where the crime was committed, in order
that he may be tried there.
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of, State of West Bengal v. Jugal Kishore2, defined
extradition as the surrender by one State to another of a person desired to be dealt with for
crimes of which he has been accused or convicted and which are justiciable in the courts of
the other state.
1
(2013) 7 SCR 1061
2
(AIR 1969 SC 1171)
P a g e 4 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
Law relating to extradition in India is governed by the Extradition Act, 1962 and the
Extradition Treaties obtaining between India and other countries. By virtue of Section 34 of
the 1962 Act, the Extradition Act of 1962 has extra-territorial jurisdiction, that is, an
extradition offence committed by any person in a Foreign State shall be deemed to have been
committed in India and such person shall be liable to be prosecuted in India for such offence.
As per Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with the Constitution of India,
1950 (Schedule VII, List I, Item 18), extradition may be defined as, the action of giving up
a fugitive criminal to the authorities of the State in which the crime was committed.
In the case of Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India3, Supreme Court of India, expatiating
over the importance of extradition law, stated the following, in authoritative terms:
Extradition is a great step towards international cooperation in the suppression of crime.
It is for this reason that the Congress of Comparative Law at Hague in 1932, resolved that
States should treat extradition as an obligation resulting from the international solidarity in
the fight against crime.
Some important definitions according to Model Law on Extradition by United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime are:
“Extradition” means the surrender of any person who is sought by the requesting State for
criminal prosecution for an extraditable offence or for the imposition or enforcement of a
sentence in respect of such an offence.
“Requesting State” means a State which requests of country adopting the law the
extradition of a person or the provisional arrest of a person with a view to extradition.
“Receiving State” means a State to which a person is to be extradited from a third State
through the territory of country adopting the law.
“Transferring State” means a State from which a person is being extradited to a third State
(receiving State) through the territory of country adopting the law.
“Extradition treaty” means a bilateral treaty concluded between country adopting the law
and a foreign country, or a multilateral treaty to which country adopting the law is a Party,
which contains provisions governing extradition of persons who are present in the territory
of country adopting the law.
“A person sought” means a person whose extradition or provisional arrest with a view to
extradition is requested by means of submitting a relevant request to the competent
3
2001 (4) SC 516
P a g e 5 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
It is a very important principle of International Law that extradition for political crimes is
not allowed. “Most States refuse to commit themselves to extradite any person charged with
‘political crimes’ that is to say crime committed for political purposes or crimes that are for
political purposes or crimes that are politically motivated. The difficulty of applying political
exception is obviously a problem that regularly plagues the courts.” The practice of non-
extradition for Political crimes began with the French Revolution of 1789. Later on, other
States also subscribed to this view. In the present period, almost all the States subscribe to
this view although many difficulties arise in the enforcement of this principle. The most
difficult problem is of the definition of the term political crimes. “Although the principle is
now widely accepted that the political criminals should not be extradited, there is probably
no rule of customary international law which prevents their extradition. However, serious
difficulties exist concerning the concept of political crimes.
Despite its universality, no statute or treaty has attempted to positively define the term
“Political Offence” and offence of political character. In the absence of internally accepted
definition the courts and legal writers tend to categorize the political offence into:
P a g e 6 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
The Relative Political offence can be an extension of the purely political offence, when in
conjunction with the latter, a common crime is also committed or when without committing
a purely political offence, the offender commits a common crime prompted by ideological
motives.
Each circumstance has to be judged in case of such crimes to see, whether the nexus
between the crime and the political act is sufficiently close, the political exception clause
in the treaty can be legitimately invoked. The relative political crimes, frequently being
violent and including common criminal conduct, create problems when their perpetrator
argue for absolution on the grounds of their political motives.
Whether or not a relative offence has political consequences will often depend on the
proximity of the offence to the political objective sought. There is no fixed rule as to what
degree of proximity is required.
The courts in Britain have tried to lay down the tests in Re Castioni Case4. The applicant
Castioni was in proceedings for habeas corpus, he was a Swiss Citizen of Canton of Ticino,
large number of citizens of his Canton had for some time been dissatisfied with its government
and feeling finally erupted into a large-scale armed attack on a government building. Castioni
was one of the leaders of the uprising who, after breaking into the building with the others shot
a member of the government who was standing inside. There was no evidence of private grudge
between Castioni and the deceased, in fact, the evidence suggested that they had never met
before. A more obvious case of a political offence could hardly be imagined. At all event the
case has been regarded by later courts as connecting the concept of political offence with overt
acts in the course of some kind of political disturbance or conflict between different parties
contending for powering a state.
In another case Re-Menuier5, Meunier was an anarchist who escaped to England from France,
where he had perpetrated two bomb outrages one in a crowded café and another at army
barracks. A divisional court on habeas corpus rejected the submission that the facts disclosed
an offence of a political nature, Cave J. stated:
“It appears to me that, in order to constitute an offence of a political character, there must be
two or more parties in the state, each seeking to impose the government of their own choice on
4
(1891), QB 149
5
(1894) 2 QB 415
P a g e 7 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
the other, and that, if the offence is committed by one side or on the other in pursuance of that
object, it is a Political Offence, otherwise not”.
But in Rex V. Kolozynski case6, the British court did not follow the restrictive definitions
given in these two judgments, but extended the definition of Political Offences by saying. “The
words, offence of political characters’ must always be considered according to the
circumstances existing at the time when they have to be considered. The present time is very
different from 1890 when Castioni’s case was decided.”
This judgment has been favourably accepted by many scholars and accordingly, now not only
offences committed to over throw a government, but also attempt to suppress or prosecute
persons holding different political opinion, is considered as Political offence.
For instance: In Quattrocchi's case - the request for extradition was declined as the CBI had
not filed the requisite documents making out a specific case for extradition and had not satisfied
the court as to the basic requirement of 'dual criminality'. To satisfy oneself as to the
requirement of dual criminality, one has to examine the treaty between the two countries and
see if the offence in question finds mention there.
3. PRINCIPLE OF SPECIALITY
An extradited individual can be tried only for offences specified in the extradition request;
the object of this principle is to prevent blanket extradition requests. The requesting State
pledges to judge the requested person only for the crime for which extradition was requested,
and not for any other offence. As a matter of fact, post the surrender of a fugitive offender,
he/she can expressly waive the rule of specialty, and can be tried for offences in addition to,
or in furtherance of the offences qua which he/she was surrendered. Moreover, in certain
cases, the requested State can agree to the fugitive offender being tried for other offences, in
addition to offences apropos which the fugitive offender was surrendered to the requesting
State.
6
(1955) 1 QB 540
P a g e 8 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
4. MILITARY OFFENCES
Military offences, e.g., desertion, and religious offences are also generally not subject to
extradition proceedings. The rule is that extradition is not allowed for trifling cases, and the
States ensure that only serious crimes do not go unpunished.
POSITION IN INDIA
In India the extradition of a fugitive from India to a foreign country or vice -versa is
governed by the provisions of Indian Extradition Act, 1962. The basis of extradition could
be a treaty between India and a foreign country. The Government of India presently has
bilateral Extradition Treaties with forty-two countries and Extradition Arrangements with
nine more countries to quicken and ease the process of extradition. The basis of extradition
could be a treaty between India and a foreign country and in absence of a treaty, an
arrangement for extradition. Under Section 3 of the Act, a notification could be issued by
the Government of India extending the provisions of the Act to the country/ countries
notified.
P a g e 9 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
EXTRADITION TREATY
Section 2(d) of the Indian Extradition Act 1962 defines an “Extradition Treaty” as a Treaty,
Arrangement/ Agreement made by India with a foreign state relating to the extradition of
fugitive criminals. Traditionally speaking, most of the extradition treaties are bilateral in nature.
However, most of them include the following five principles which have been endorsed by
many judicial pronouncements:
1. Extradition applies only with respect to offenses clearly stipulated as such in the treaty.
2. The principle of dual criminality requires that the offenses for which the extradition has been
sought to be an offense under the national laws of both the jurisdictions under the extradition.
P a g e 10 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
3. The requested country must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case made out against the
accused /offender.
4. The extradited person must be preceded against only the offense for which his extradition
has been requested.
5. He must be accorded a fair trial taking care of the principles of natural justice.
P a g e 11 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
The award, while admitting that an irregularity had been committed by the handing over
of Savarkar to the British authorities, decided in favour of Great Britain holding that there
was no rule of International Law imposing in such circumstances any obligation on the
power which has in its custody a prisoner, to restore him because of a mistake committed
by the foreign agent who delivered him up to that power.
7
(1911) 11 RIAA 243
P a g e 12 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
In his defence, Dr. Mallya argued that the GOI failed to establish a prima facie case.
Furthermore, he contended that his extradition was being sought for extraneous considerations,
namely his political opinions. Dr. Mallya also argued that his extradition was barred since the
same was not compatible with his Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights
Act. Specifically, Dr. Mallya argued that there would be a risk to his right to a fair trial (Article
6) and prohibition of torture (Article 3). Dr. Mallya also made detailed arguments objecting to
the admissibility of the GOI's evidence including witness statements under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"). Dr. Mallya relied upon the evidence of several
experts including a report prepared by Dr. Alan Mitchell regarding prison conditions (this
expert also provided evidence during Mr. Chawla' extradition hearing). For its part, aside from
placing on record substantial evidence in support of its allegations, the GOI also gave a number
of assurances regarding prison conditions.
The Magistrate Court held that that there was a prima case that Dr. Mallya had committed
the offence of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to launder money. It did not find any
evidence to support Dr. Mallya's contention that his extradition was being sought for the
purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his political opinions. The
Magistrate Court also accepted the assurances given by the GOI with respect to priso n
conditions and held that there were no grounds for believing that the Requested Person
would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. Likewise, it
also held that there was no evidence that Dr. Mallya was at a real risk of suffering a flagrant
denial of justice in terms of Article 6. Notably, the Magistrate Court held that the witness
statements under Section 161 of the CrPC were admissible. Consequently, the case was
sent to the Secretary of State for a decision to be taken on whether to order his extradition.
The Secretary of State approved Dr. Mallya's extradition.
Dr. Mallya sought leave to file an appeal to the High Court against the decisions of the
Magistrate Court and the Secretary of State under various grounds. Permission was refused
on all grounds save one: the ground that the Magistrate Court was wrong to conclude that
there was evidence "which would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by the
person if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him". The
thrust of Dr. Mallya's defence was that the Magistrate Court had erred in determining that
the prima facie test had been satisfied and in admitting the evidence filed by the GOI. The
High Court rejected both contentions, it held that the Magistrate Court was correct in
determining that there was a prima facie case and that the GOI's evidence, including the
P a g e 13 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
witness statements under Section 161 of the CrPC, were admissible. The appeal was
dismissed on 20 April 2020. Dr. Mallya's application seeking leave to file an appeal before
the Supreme Court was dismissed on 14 May 2020. Consequently, unless Dr. Mallya is
able to secure relief from the European Court of Human Rights, his extradition to India is
now imminent.
After the incident he fled to Dubai then to USA and finally ended up in Portugal. A Red Corner
Notice was issued against him by Interpol. He was arrested in Portugal for staying there with
forged passports and documents.
There was no official extradition treaty between Portugal and India then i.e., in 2002 (The
official treaty was signed by both countries only in 2007). So, India made a formal request to
Portugal for extraditing Abu Salem to India.
The request was made in pursuance of the International Convention for the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings to which both India and Portugal are signatories. The extradition request
was made by India for the prosecution of the accused in relation to 9 criminal cases.
When the Extradition Trial started in Portugal, Indian Ambassador in Libson (Portugal) gave
assurance to the Republic of Portugal that:
• Abu Salem will not be prosecuted for any offence other than those for which he is
sought for and;
• He will not be re-extradited to any other third country.
Also, the Portugal mandated that he should not be imposed with death penalty and an
imprisonment more than 25 years cannot be awarded to him.
In 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice granted the extradition request made by India.
P a g e 14 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
Subsequently Abu Salem was extradited to India. But later he approached the Supreme Court
of India and Court of Appeals seated at Libson claiming that his extradition became invalid
with the fact that Union of India violated the Rule of Speciality.
He contended that additional charges were pressed upon him which is contrary to the
extradition order granted by the Portugal. The Supreme Court of Justice observed that Union
of India has violated the Principle of Speciality.
And the Supreme Court of India in the case of Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari v. Central
Bureau of Investigation &Anr.8, observed that the Court in Portugal even though observed
that there is violation of Principle of Speciality, also said there is any specific consequence for
the violation of the said rule. And it has not sought back the accused through any diplomatic
channel. And the order of extradition is still valid.
He again approached a Libson Administrative Court for with the contention his extradition
became invalid since the Indian authorities didn’t comply with the directions in the order.
It was dismissed by the Administrative Court and it observed that the issue must be solved
through diplomatic discussions. And the Supreme Court of India in January, 2021 rejected
his writ petition under Article 32.
8
(2013) 12 SCC 1
P a g e 15 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
CONCLUSION
Extradition happens to be an important tool in ensuring law and justice today. However, the
irregularity in its application between nations poses a threat to the principles of justice.
However, it is essential to ensure a balance between extradition law and rights of an individual.
It can be understood that this field is a work in progress as the customary nature of this law vis
a vis the standing nature of human and individual rights makes the balancing act one of great
difficulty. This essentially means that extradition must at the least be in line with ensuring basic
human rights of an individual. Effectively, every country must comply with extradition request
unless the fugitive has a compelling reason to prevent such action. It is safe to say that the
existing international framework does undoubtedly increase the effectivity of law enforcement.
But as a caveat, it is essential to ensure to ensure the safety of the individual is ensured before
the interest of the other country so as to ensure that extradition is practical both in terms of
respect and practice.
P a g e 16 | 17
UILS, Panjab University
REFERENCES
❖ Tandon, Mahesh Prasad and Tandon Rajesh, Public International Law, Allahabad Law
Agency, 2002
❖ Kapoor, Dr. S.K., International Law and Human Rights, Central Law Agency,1974
❖ Sagar, Faraz Alam and Sharma, Pragati, Extradition Law: Fundamentals and Processes
– Part I, https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2019/08/extradition-law-
fundamentals-processes-part1/
❖ Magandas, Shardul Amarchand and Malhotra Aditya, India: India's Recent Successes
In Extraditing Fugitives From The United Kingdom,
https://www.mondaq.com/india/human-rights/948934/india39s-recent-successes-in-
extraditing-fugitives-from-the-united-kingdom
❖ https://www.unodc.org/pdf/model_law_extradition.pdf
❖ https://mea.gov.in/leta.htm
❖ Kalra, Avneet, Extradition, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1241-
extradition.html
❖ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291074865_Extradition_Law_Indian_Persp
ective
❖ Chabbra, Saroj. Political Offence an Exception to Extradition,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333894596_POLITICAL_OFFENCE_AN_
EXCEPTION_TO_EXTRADITION
❖ https://cbi.gov.in/Extradition
❖ https://thedailyguardian.com/journey-of-extradition-laws-in-india/
P a g e 17 | 17