Can the Christian Michel case impact the extradition of wanted individuals such as Nirav Modi and Vijay Mallya?

In the midst of the controversy surrounding the extradition of high-profile Indian businessmen from overseas, including Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi, British citizen Christian Michel, who is suspected of acting as a middleman in the VVIP chopper scandal, comes to light.

Unlike the other economic criminals, Michel, who is now being held in the city’s Tihar Jail, said in a court appearance that he had been in detention for more than five years since his extradition from Dubai on December 4, 2018.

Their extradition to India is still a mystery, despite the departure of over two dozen wanted fugitives who had left a trail of unpaid debts totaling hundreds of crores from Indian banks raising serious issues about the efficacy of judicial systems.

The legal nuances of Michel’s situation now became apparent. He went to the court to request his release, arguing that he had been detained for the longest amount of time possible under the circumstances, but he was not granted any relief.

Aljo K. Joseph, his attorney, claimed that the applicant’s personal liberty, which is protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, has been arbitrarily infringed and that, in light of Section 21 of the Extradition Act of 1962, there is no legal basis for keeping the applicant in detention for more than five years.

According to the proviso to section 436A, “…no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law,” he said.

He went on to say that his client cannot be prosecuted for offenses other than the ones for which he was extradited under Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which adopts the “Doctrine of Specialty”.

According to Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal, the accused is accused of violating Section 467 IPC, which carries a life sentence. This allegation is based on a ruling by a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud last year.

“By the same very reasoning, since Section 467 IPC has been invoked by the prosecuting agency by way of supplementary charge sheet, this plea that the accused has already undergone the maximum period of detention u/S. 415, 420 IPC as well as u/S. 8 of the PC Act is not tenable, as the prosecuting agency has also invoked Section 467 IPC, which entails punishment upto life,” the special judge said.

Notably, the previous order from the highest court stated that “it is evident that the person to be extradited shall not be tried or punished in the requesting State (namely India) except for the offences for which his extradition is sought or for offences connected therewith,” citing Article 17 of the Extradition Treaty between India and the UAE.

An extradited person shall not be tried in India for any offence other than: “(a) the extradition offence in relation to which he was surrendered or returned; or (b) any lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for the purposes of securing his surrender or return other than an offence in relation to which an order for his surrender for return could not be lawfully made; or (c) the offence in respect of which the foreign State has given its consent.” The top court stated this in its 2023 order, citing Section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962.

Nevertheless, the CBI’s statement that “the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Section 467 IPC which is punishable with up to life imprisonment” did not clarify if the agency had complied with the Extradition Act or the UAE convention.

In the days ahead, the dilemma of law vs diplomacy in this case may provide difficulties for future extradition cases involving fugitive economic criminals who have fled to other nations.