Understanding Extradition: Laws, Principles,

and Landmark Cases

Extradition
"No one can outrun the long arms of Law"

This adage illustrates the true nature and objective of the Legal System. Upon
committing an offence, the person will be eventually brought to Justice; this is the
assurance that is given by the Law. With globalisation and interconnectedness
between the countries, it has become easier for the offenders in India to travel
abroad and try to safeguard themselves against the prosecutions faced in India.

Introduction
Extradition is an essential legal mechanism through which individuals suspected or
convicted of crime can be transferred from one country to another to face trial or
punishment. It forms a crucial part of public international al law, aiming to promote
cooperation and maintain justice and security among nations.

Definition:
The term extradition has derived from two Latin words ex and traditum. Ordinarily it
may mean 'delivery of criminals', 'surrender of Fugitive', or 'handover of fugitives

According to Oppenheim, "Extradition is the delivery of an accused or a convicted

individual to the state where he is accused of, or has been convicted of, a crime, by
the state on whose territory he happens for the time to be".

Purpose of extradition:
A criminal is extradited to the requesting state for the following reasons:

 Suppression of crime: Extradition is a process towards the suppression of

crime. Normally a person cannot be punished or prosecuted in a state where
he has fled away because of lack of jurisdiction or because of some technical
rules of criminal law. Criminals are therefore extradited so that their crimes
may not go unpunished.

 Deterrent effect: Extradition acts as a warning to the criminals that they can't
escape punishment by fleeing to another state. Extradition therefore has a
deterrent effect.

 Safeguarding the interests of Territorial state: Criminals are surrendered as it

safeguards the interest of the territorial state. If a particular state adopts a
policy of non-extradition of criminals, they would like to flee to that state only.
The state, therefore, would become a place for international criminals, which
indeed would be dangerous for it because they may again commit a crime
there if they are left free.
  Reciprocity: Extradition is based on reciprocity. A state that is requested to
surrender the criminal today may have to request the extradition of a criminal
on some future date.

 International co-operation: Extradition is done because it is a step towards the

achievement of international co-operation in solving international problems of
a social character. Thus, it fulfills one of the purposes of the UN as provided
under Para 3 of article 1 of the charter.
 Evidence: The state on whose territory the crime has been committed is in a
better position to try the offender because the evidence is more freely
available in that state only.

Basis of the principles of extradition:

Double criminality: Double criminality refers to the characterization of the relator's
criminal conduct in so far as it constitutes an offence under the laws of the two
respective states. It applies the principle of dual criminality which means that the
offence sought to be an offence in the national laws of requesting as well as
requested country,

Extraditable offence: The very first requirement for a successful extradition is that
the offence committed must be an extraditable offence. Extradition is a procedure
appropriate only for the more serious offences and accordingly the national
extradition law of most States limits the number of extraditable offences either to
certain specific offences or to offences subject to a specified level of punishment
Double Jeopardy: The most basic understanding of double jeopardy is that it refers
to prosecuting a person more than once for the same offense. Once you are
acquitted or convicted of a specific instance of violating the law however, you cannot
be prosecuted (or punished again, if convicted) on that same charge by the same
government for that same instance of violating that law.

Rule of Speciality: This doctrine is premised on the assumption that whenever a

state uses its formal processes to surrender a person to another state for a specific
charge, the requesting state shall carry out its intended purpose of prosecuting or
punishing the offender only for the offence for which the requested state conceded
extradition. The doctrine of specialty developed to protect the requested country
from abuse of its discretionary act of extradition Legal consultation

Rule of Reciprocity: Reciprocity is one of the legal basis for extradition in the
absence of a treaty which is a part of international principles of friendly cooperation
amongst nations. Reciprocity, as a substantive requirement of extradition (whether
based on a treaty or not) arises with respect to various specific aspects of the
process.

Extradition of nationals: In principle, any individual, whether he is a national of

the requesting State, or of the requested State, or of a third State, may be
extradited. Many States, however, never extradite one of their nationals to a foreign
State Does it means the offender goes unpunished? The answer is negative. In such
a case the requested party has to initiate criminal prosecution against any such
person for the same offence according to its laws.
Political or Military Character: There is an important principle in international law
that the political criminal shall not be extradited. For example: Re Meunier case in
which the accused was an anarchist and was charged with causing two explosions in
para café and two barracks. After committing the offence, he fled to England. France
demanded his extradition.
The accused contended that the nature of his crime was political and therefore be
could not be extradited. The practice of non-extradition for political crimes began
with French Revolution of 1789. It is also a restriction on the scope of extradition.
Military criminals shall also not be extradited who have not been charged of war
crimes

Laws related to Extradition in India

In India, the Law that governs extradition matters is known as "The Extradition
Treaty, 1962". This law extends to the whole of India and has applied to India since
15th September 1962. This law is for extraditing persons to India and from India to
foreign countries. The basis of the extradition could be a treaty between India and
another country.
Section 2 (d) of the Extradition Act, 1962 defines the term "Extradition Treaty". It
says, "Extradition treaty" means a treaty, agreement or arrangement made by India
with a foreign State relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals and includes any
treaty, agreement or arrangement relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals
made before the 15th day of August 1947, which extends to, and is binding on, India.

At present India has an Extradition treaty with 43 countries and Extradition

agreement with 11 countries.

Extradition Treaties:
Extradition treaties are the agreements between Countries that govern the matters
of extradition of persons. India currently has extradition treaties with 48 countries.
The nodal government body for the extradition matters of India is the Ministry of
External Affairs. It provides a detailed account of the number of fugitives surrendered
from different countries.

India is a signatory to a number of multilateral treaties that offer a legally

enforceable framework for extradition in order to combat international crimes,
including drug trafficking, terrorism, and the hijacking of aeroplanes. Fugitive
prisoners may also be demanded to be turned over to non-treaty governments. With
the promise of reciprocity from India, these requests may be taken into consideration
in line with the rules and regulations of the foreign state.

Importance of extradition:
Contemporary society with all its technological developments has become a play
field to criminal activities. Easier transportation and communication are aiding the
criminals to easily flee from the jurisdictional clutches of victim states. This increase
the importance of extradition treaty/arrangements

Sovereign constrain: Since the sovereign constraints stop the victim state to
effectively exercise their jurisdiction, extradition alone offers the legal avenue to
overcome the jurisdictional hardship.
Savarkar's case:
In 1910, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was being brought to India from Britain via a
vessel named Morea, for his trial on a charge of treason and murder (Emperor v.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1910)). He escaped to France while the vessel was
harboured at Marseilles. However, a French policeman, in a mistaken execution of his
duty, caught and surrendered Savarkar to the British authorities without following
the extradition proceedings.

Later, France demanded Britain hand over Savarkar to formally carry out his
extradition procedure. Britain refused France's demand, and the case was laid before
the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague. The Court agreed with the happening of
irregularity on the part of the French policeman. However, France's demand for a
fresh extradition procedure was rejected owing to the absence of international law
regarding such circumstances.

Vijay Mallaya's case

The case of Mr. Vijay Mallaya, the business tycoon and owner of Kingfisher Airlines
and United Breweries Holdings Ltd., is arguably the most well-known extradition case
in India (Dr Vijay Mallya v. State Bank Of India (2018)). He owed a whopping debt of
over ₹6,000 crores to 17 Indian banks including the State Bank of India and the
Indian Overseas Bank. Fearing an impending arrest, Mallaya fled from India to the
United Kingdom in 2016. His extradition was sought by India in 2017.

Mallya's extradition case was laid before the Westminster Magistrate's Court in
London. In 2018, the Court ordered his extradition to India. His appeal at the High
Court in London was rejected; however, he has not been brought back to India yet
due to ongoing legal procedures. It's also worth noting that in 2019, he was declared
a 'Fugitive Economic Offender' under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018.

Nirav Modi's case:

Mr Nirav Modi was a luxury diamond jewellery merchant. In 2018, the Punjab
National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint before the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI), alleging Nirav, along with his wife Mrs Ami Modi, of fraudulently obtaining fake
Letters of Understanding (LoU) worth ₹11,400 crores. The money was then
channelised to his fifteen overseas sham companies.

Following a CBI probe, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) confiscated Nirav's assets in
India. He fled India and sought asylum in the United Kingdom. Interpol issued a Red
Corner Notice against him in 2018. Following an extradition request from India, a
Westminster Court issued an arrest warrant against Nirav. The Court ordered his
extradition to India in 2021.

The Mehul Choksi Case:

The case involving Mr. Choksi was one that stirred great controversy in India. Mr
Choksi is wanted in India for counts of criminal conspiracy, corruption, money
laundering and criminal breach of trust on account of the Punjab National Bank Loan
Fraud.
After being accused of his crimes, Mr. Choksi fled to Antigua, where he purchased
citizenship under am investor scheme, in light of avoiding deportation to India for his
Trial.

Conclusion
Extradition is an essential tool not only to render justice but also to test diplomatic
ties. However, the absence of extradition treaties with many countries becomes the
loophole that fugitive criminals exploit. There is a need to bring about a
comprehensive international law relating to extradition. It is this lacuna which may
not only cause economic or judicial issues in the fugitive's origin country but also
pose far-fletching implications like security threats in the country where takes refuge.