AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXTRADITION LAWS IN THE LIGHT OF SANJEEV CHAWLA AND VIJAY MALLYA
By: Divya Goyal, School of Law, Manav Rachna University
DOI - https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10898928
INTRODUCTION:
Extradition is 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]
Extradition treaty means a treaty made by India with a foreign State relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals, and includes any treaty relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals made before the 15th day of August, 1947, which extends to, and is binding on, India.[2] The Supreme Court defined extradition because the delivery on a part of one State to a different of these whom it’s desired to affect for crimes of which they need been accused or convicted and are justifiable within the Courts of the opposite State.[3] Extraditable persons include those charged with a criminal offense but not yet tried, those tried and convicted who have escaped custody, and people convicted in absentia.[4]
The Extradition Act 1962 allows India to exercise these laws judicially and in 1993, this act was significantly amended by Act 66 of 1993. In the case of Dr. Jayanti Dharma Teja v The State[5], Teja was a shipping tycoon as well as a famous financial and political leader in all over the world and was said to have connections with Jawaharlal Nehru and Morarji Desai in 1960s. On the uncovering of his discretions, he fought his case and tried to cover himself by humiliating and defaming Indira Gandhi’s governance. In 1961, Teja was able to raise rupees 20 crore as loan and he was really quick to change the shipping sector of India. He flew to Ivory Coast when busted but was denied to send back because of non-extradition laws between India and Ivory Coast. Later, he flew to Britain and was arrested in London on the basis of extradition laws. He was sentenced to imprisonment for three years in 1972 in India for cheating and falsification of documents. Teja died in 1985 still owing rupees 13.5 crore to the Income Tax Department.
India has extradition treaties with 48 countries and arrangements with 10 countries. Extradition Act permits non- treaty countries to agree with the extradition request as per the arrangements with foreign countries since India has entered into a special extradition arrangement.[6] Where there is no extradition treaty made by India with any foreign State, the Central Government may, by notified order, treat any Convention to which India and a foreign State are parties, as an extradition treaty made by India with that foreign State providing for extradition in respect of the offences specified in that Convention.[7]
India has experienced two prominent extradition cases in UK’s court. Indian judiciary system has seen successful as well as failed case in point. Chawla and Mallya are two of the most eminent people who got arrested and detained in the UK’s court due to fraud and money laundering charges.
SANJEEV CHAWLA AND VIJAY MALLAYA SCAM:
Sanjeev Chawla was a businessman mainly based in London who was involved in match- fixing swindle during South Africa tour in 2000. It was discovered when law enforcement agencies undertook telephone tapping in an unrelated investigation.[8] With the fear of getting arrested, he flew to Britain and in 2016, he was ordered to be extradited back from UK to India.
Vijay Mallya was a business tycoon with a number of various businesses comprising of owning the brand Kingfisher and an IPL team as well as being a member of Parliament in 2012. Mallya caught everyone in surprise when his magnificent debt of 9,000 crores came to the limelight.[9] He owed money to 17 Indian banks and was accused of money laundering and fraud.[10] Because of his great scam, he was also feared of getting tried and arrested, and flew to Britain to take shelter in 2016.
ANALOGY OF EXTRADITION TRIAL:
Sanjeev Chawla’s extradition was marked as the first successful prominent case after the India- UK treaty whereas Vijay Mallya’s extradition case had a failed instance in the UK’s court. The significant alibi in both cases was the condition of prisons in India. Alan Mitchell who was a prison expert submitted common declarations in court which highlighted overcrowding, poor management and violence against prisoners.[11] The court concluded that Mitchell is “able to provide an objective analysis of the other information available” and that there were “strong grounds for believing that the offender would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment[12] in the prison complex, due to the overcrowding, the lack of medical provision, risk of being subjected to torture and violence either from other inmates or prison staff which is endemic in Tihar”.[13]
The prosecutors in both the cases were also same but with valid evidences and videotapes by CBI in court to protect the criminals’ human rights, the further appeals were rejected in the British court and judgements were given to extradit them from UK. Within 28 days of verdict Chawla was extradited from UK in 2019. On the other hand, the extradition of Mallya was continuously delayed.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
The process of extradition is possible when both the countries accept the seriousness of crime equally and it amounts to crime in both the countries with prima facie against the citizen. Extradition laws allows both the countries to prosecute the offenders. Fugitive criminals are tried in the refugee countries before extraditing them to their countries. Sanjeev Chawla and Vijay Mallya were tried in UK’s court before extraditing to India. If such a person is tried in the requested state court or if he proves the prosecution is unjust, oppressive, prejudiced, or discriminatory, the extradition request can be refused.[14] The legal proceedings of both the cases were postponed for years on the basis of these postulations.
When a fugitive criminal is extradited from a foreign state to India then at that time a warrant for arrest of the fugitive criminal in the foreign state is issued by the magistrate in the format prescribed by the foreign state and under such a warrant, the fugitive criminal is brought into India and delivered to the proper authority to be dealt with according to the law.[15]
On the grounds of human rights, Chawla was continuously delaying his extradition but the ECHR overruled his appeal on this contention when Indian government guaranteed to protect him and finally extradited to India for further trial.
Mallya was the first Indian to be declared as Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO) in 2019 when even after 2 years of extradition judgement, he was still impeded. It was concluded by the British court that some secret proceedings were in process and he was found guilty.
CONCLUSION:
The case delay only proves the misuse of laws and proceedings by the rich where the banks, which otherwise acted cautiously, had lost most of their reputation.[16] These types of cases can be set as an example for the future. The extradition is generally adapted only to lessen the burden of finding guilty of the accused that flee to another country to evade the arrest, so in such cases, the delay even in extradition would only bring further degradation to the law and justice.[17]
[1] State of West Bengal v Jugal Kishore More & Anr [1969] AIR 1171
[2] The Extradition Act 1962, s 2(d)
[3] Tripti Bhushan, ‘An analysis of extradition laws’ (2022) < thedailyguardian.com-An analysis of extradition laws.pdf > accessed 10 January 2024
[4] ibid
[5] [1972] CriLJ 127
[6] The Extradition Act 1962, s 3(1)
[7] The Extradition Act 1962, s 3(4)
[8] HT Correspodent, ‘Sanjeev Chawla, accussed in the 2000 cricket match- fixing racket, extradicted from UK to India’ Hindustan Times (India, 15 September 2020)
[9] Advocate Misha Deb, ‘An analysis of the Vijay Mallaya Case’ (2021) < https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-vijay-mallya-case/#Critical_analysis > accessed on 11 January 2024
[10] ibid
[11] Ruhi Khan, ‘UK Court Accepts Assurances About Indian Prisoners In Sanjeev Chawla Extradition Case’ (2018) < https://thewire.in/law/indian-prison-fine-says-british-court-extradition-case-bookie-sanjeev-chawla > accessed on 11 January 11, 2024
[12] European Convention on Human Rights, article 3
[13] Ruhi Khan, ‘UK Court Accepts Assurances About Indian Prisoners In Sanjeev Chawla Extradition Case’ (2018) < https://thewire.in/law/indian-prison-fine-says-british-court-extradition-case-bookie-sanjeev-chawla > accessed on 11 January 11, 2024
[14] Advocate Misha Deb, ‘An analysis of the Vijay Mallaya Case’ (2021) < https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-vijay-mallya-case/#Critical_analysis > accessed on 11 January 2024
[15] Anuj Berry, Anusha Ramesh and Aryan Agarwal, ‘Extradition: India’ (2023) < https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/insight/know-how/extradition/report/india > accessed on 11 January 2024
[16] Advocate Misha Deb, ‘An analysis of the Vijay Mallaya Case’ (2021) < https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-vijay-mallya-case/#Critical_analysis > accessed on 11 January 2024
[17] ibid