The correspondent filing this dispatch is a law student in Mumbai who must remain anonymous.
Two high-profile extradition cases unfolding this month highlight India’s obligations under domestic and international law: the potential extradition of former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from India back to her home country, and India’s efforts to extradite diamond merchant Mehul Choksi from Belgium.
Sheikh Hasina, who served as prime minister of Bangladesh for nearly 20 years across multiple terms, was ousted in 2024 after political upheaval and fled to India in August. Last month, she was sentenced to death in absentia by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) for crimes against humanity, mostly in the context of the student uprising of 2024. While India has not received a formal extradition request following the verdict, the issue is poised to become a diplomatic and geopolitical challenge for India.
Mehul Choksi, a diamond merchant accused in the $1.8 billion Punjab National Bank fraud case, has been the subject of a now-revoked Interpol red notice and white-collar crime proceedings spanning three continents over the past seven years. He appealed his extradition decision to the Belgian Supreme Court. On December 9, the court rejected his appeal, clearing the path for his extradition to India.
India’s extradition framework
Article 253 of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament the power to make laws to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions, or decisions of international bodies. India currently has extradition treaties with 48 countries and extradition arrangements with 12 others. The Indian Parliament enacted the Extradition Act of 1962 to provide the legislative basis for extradition from India.
The Hasina case: non-refoulement concerns
The principle of non-refoulement in public international law and international humanitarian law prohibits a country from returning a person to a state where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being subjected to torture. It requires consideration of whether there is a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights.
The United Nations expressed concerns over a capital sentence issued in a trial in absentia, concerns heightened by politically volatile conditions in Bangladesh. Despite the regime change in 2024, human rights violations in the form of enforced disappearances and extra-judicial killings continue unchecked.
The Choksi case: judicial hurdles and human rights compliance
Choksi fled India in 2018, and New Delhi’s attempts to extradite him date back to March of the same year. He was detained in Dominica in 2021, alleging he had been “kidnapped” by Indian agents. He subsequently initiated proceedings against Antigua and Barbuda before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and against India before the United Kingdom High Court.
The latest development began in August 2024, with India sending a formal extradition request to Belgium. The Antwerp District Court held the arrest warrants issued by a Mumbai court as enforceable, a decision upheld by the Antwerp Court of Appeal. Choksi appealed to the Belgian Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal on December 9, clearing the path for his extradition to India.
Belgian courts have repeatedly emphasized that India’s request must comply with human rights obligations, particularly in light of Choksi’s concerns about custodial mistreatment and inadequate medical care. India addressed these concerns through a formal letter of assurance to Belgium. This case illustrates the judicial challenges in the extradition process, especially when the fugitive’s substantial resources enable multiple high-level legal proceedings.
India’s efforts to extradite other financial offenders from Europe, such as Nirav Modi and Sanjay Bhandari, will now be increasingly evaluated through the framework of human rights compliance.
The parallel cases of Sheikh Hasina and Mehul Choksi represent extradition from India and extradition to India, respectively, as well as the human rights considerations in both contexts. These cases reflect India’s position within a broader trend of ensuring that the cooperative system of extradition does not override fair trials and due process.
