Extradition Laws in India

Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

Extradition represents a cornerstone of international criminal justice cooperation, enabling states to ensure that fugitive criminals cannot evade prosecution merely by crossing borders. The recent arrest of diamond trader Mehul Choksi in Belgium has brought India's extradition framework into sharp focus, highlighting both the potential and challenges of cross-border legal cooperation. As India continues its efforts to bring back economic offenders who have fled the country, understanding the legal intricacies of extradition becomes crucial for appreciating the complexities involved in such high-profile cases. 

What is the Legal Framework Governing Extradition in India? 

• India's extradition framework is primarily governed by the Extradition Act, 1962, which establishes comprehensive provisions for both requesting and surrendering fugitive criminals.  
• The Act grants India extra-territorial jurisdiction under Section 34, meaning that crimes committed by individuals in foreign states are deemed to have been committed in India, allowing for prosecution upon their return. 
• According to Section 2(c) an extradition offence varies depending on whether the foreign state is a treaty partner or not - for treaty states, it refers to offences listed in bilateral agreements, while for non-treaty states, it covers crimes punishable by at least one year of imprisonment. 
• The Supreme Court has defined extradition as "the delivery on the part of one State to another of those whom it is desired to deal with for crimes of which they have been accused or convicted." 
• Currently, India maintains extradition treaties with 48 countries and extradition arrangements with 12 others, creating a robust network for international criminal cooperation. These treaties are traditionally bilateral in character and can be invoked for individuals who are under investigation, under trial, or already convicted. 
• The legal framework operates on three fundamental principles:  
  • Double Criminality (the act must be an offence in both jurisdictions), the Principle of Specialty (prosecution limited to the specific crime for which extradition was sought), and Political Exception (refusal if the request appears politically motivated).  
  • These principles ensure that extradition serves justice while protecting individuals from potential abuse of the process. 

What is the Background of the Mehul Choksi Extradition Case? 

• Mehul Choksi, a 65-year-old diamond trader and key figure in India's largest banking fraud, stands accused of orchestrating a Rs 13,500 crore scam involving Punjab National Bank.  
• Operating through his Gitanjali Group, Choksi, along with his nephew Nirav Modi, allegedly obtained fraudulent Letters of Understanding (LoUs) from PNB's Brady House branch in Mumbai between 2014 and 2017. 
• These LoUs were used to secure credit from foreign banks, creating a continuous flow of funds while accumulating massive debt through the collusion of bank officials.  
• When PNB discovered these irregularities, both Mehul Choksi and Nirav Modi had already fled India, leaving the bank with losses exceeding Rs 13,500 crore, with Choksi alone accused of defrauding over Rs 6,000 crore.  
• Mehul Choksi had been living in Antigua and Barbuda as a citizen since 2018 before moving to Belgium for cancer treatment, where he was arrested on 13th April 2025, in Antwerp following India's extradition request. 
• The case is complicated by Mehul Choksi's controversial 2021 incident in Dominica, where he was allegedly kidnapped by Indian agents, and his subsequent Antiguan citizenship.  
• His legal team is expected to challenge the extradition on grounds of his medical condition, potential human rights violations, and concerns about prison conditions in India, making this a complex legal battle that could extend for years. 

How Does Extradition Work When No Treaty Exists? 

• The absence of a formal extradition treaty does not automatically preclude extradition, though it significantly complicates the process and makes outcomes less predictable.  
• Under Section 3(4) of the Extradition Act, 1962, India can treat international conventions to which both countries are parties as extradition treaties, provided they cover the relevant offences.  
  • This provision allows India to leverage multilateral agreements on corruption, organized crime, or terrorism as the basis for extradition requests. 
• Some states may extradite individuals without formal treaties under their domestic laws, often applying the principle of reciprocity - essentially agreeing to extradite on the understanding that similar cooperation would be provided in reverse circumstances. 
  • Such cases remain rare due to the legal uncertainties and potential diplomatic complications involved. 
• More commonly, countries without extradition treaties resort to alternative mechanisms such as deportation under immigration laws or conducting trials in the host state if their legal system permits. These alternatives, while available, often prove less effective than formal extradition procedures and may not fully serve the interests of justice, particularly in complex financial crime cases like those involving economic offenders. 

When Can Extradition Requests Be Refused? 

• Extradition requests can be legitimately refused on several well-established grounds that protect both state sovereignty and individual rights. Political and military offences represent primary exceptions, as extradition is traditionally viewed as a tool for addressing common crimes rather than political disputes. 
• If the statute of limitations has expired under the requesting country's law, extradition will typically be denied. 
• Procedural barriers also exist - if an individual is already facing trial or serving a sentence in India for the same or different offences, extradition may be refused or delayed. Human rights concerns constitute another significant ground for refusal, particularly when there are credible fears about torture, inhumane treatment, or grossly inadequate prison conditions in the requesting state. 
• Courts may also refuse extradition if they determine that the request appears to target an individual based on race, religion, nationality, or political opinions rather than genuine criminal conduct.  
• The principle of specialty requires assurance that the fugitive will only be tried for the specific offence mentioned in the extradition request, and failure to provide such assurance can result in refusal. 

Conclusion 

The Mehul Choksi case exemplifies both the potential and limitations of India's extradition framework in addressing economic crimes of international dimension. While India has developed comprehensive legal provisions and established extensive treaty networks, practical challenges including lengthy judicial processes, human rights considerations, and diplomatic complexities continue to impact successful extraditions. The case states the need for continued strengthening of international cooperation mechanisms while ensuring that legal safeguards protecting individual rights remain intact. As India pursues economic offenders who have fled abroad, the evolution of its extradition jurisprudence will significantly influence the country's ability to combat transnational financial crimes effectively.