{"id":23121,"date":"2026-04-29T06:07:33","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T06:07:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=23121"},"modified":"2026-04-29T06:12:37","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T06:12:37","slug":"extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Extradition Law &amp; Terrorism: Legal Barriers, Global Gaps &amp; India\u2019s Struggle for Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-i-legal-foundation-of-extradition\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_I_The_Legal_Foundation_of_Extradition\"><\/span>Section I: The Legal Foundation of Extradition<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Extradition is grounded in the doctrine of <strong>&#8220;aut dedere aut judicare&#8221;<\/strong> \u2014 &#8220;either extradite or prosecute&#8221; \u2014 a foundational principle of international criminal law. States are obligated, under this norm, to either surrender an accused person to the requesting State or subject them to domestic prosecution. This principle prevents fugitives from finding safe havens across borders.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Section_I_The_Legal_Foundation_of_Extradition\" >Section I: The Legal Foundation of Extradition<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Key_Legal_Instruments\" >Key Legal Instruments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Global_Extradition_Framework_Gap\" >Global Extradition Framework Gap<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Section_II_The_Political_Offence_Exception\" >Section II: The Political Offence Exception<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#The_Attentat_Clause_Its_Limitations\" >The Attentat Clause &amp; Its Limitations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Relevant_Conventions\" >Relevant Conventions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Enforcement_Challenges\" >Enforcement Challenges<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Section_III_The_Non-Refoulement_Principle\" >Section III: The Non-Refoulement Principle<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Legal_Provisions\" >Legal Provisions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Key_Legal_Instruments_and_Principles\" >Key Legal Instruments and Principles<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Diplomatic_Assurances_An_Imperfect_Solution\" >Diplomatic Assurances: An Imperfect Solution<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Section_IV_Dual_Criminality_and_the_Specialty_Doctrine\" >Section IV: Dual Criminality and the Specialty Doctrine<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Dual_Criminality\" >Dual Criminality<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Indian_Law\" >Indian Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#The_Specialty_Doctrine\" >The Specialty Doctrine<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Practical_Impact_of_the_Specialty_Doctrine\" >Practical Impact of the Specialty Doctrine<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Section_V_Stateless_Terrorists_Non-State_Actors\" >Section V: Stateless Terrorists &amp; Non-State Actors<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Jurisdictional_Vacuum\" >Jurisdictional Vacuum<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Statelessness\" >Statelessness<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Failed_State_Situations\" >Failed State Situations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Proxy_Use_by_Hostile_States\" >Proxy Use by Hostile States<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Section_VI_Absence_of_Extradition_Treaties\" >Section VI: Absence of Extradition Treaties<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Country_Treaty_Status_With_India\" >Country Treaty Status With India<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Indian_Statutory_Framework\" >Indian Statutory Framework<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Section_VII_Indias_Extradition_Framework\" >Section VII: India&#8217;s Extradition Framework<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Extradition_Act_1962_%E2%80%94_Key_Provisions\" >Extradition Act, 1962 \u2014 Key Provisions<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Statutory_Provisions\" >Statutory Provisions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Counter-Terrorism_Legislation_Extraditable_Offences\" >Counter-Terrorism Legislation &amp; Extraditable Offences<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Relevant_Indian_Statutes\" >Relevant Indian Statutes<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#The_Role_of_the_Executive\" >The Role of the Executive<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Section_VIII_Landmark_Cases_Diplomatic_Failures\" >Section VIII: Landmark Cases &amp; Diplomatic Failures<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Dawood_Ibrahim\" >Dawood Ibrahim<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Masood_Azhar_UNSC_Listing\" >Masood Azhar &amp; UNSC Listing<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Vijay_Mallya_%E2%80%94_UK_Courts_ECHR_Concerns\" >Vijay Mallya \u2014 UK Courts &amp; ECHR Concerns<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Abu_Salem_%E2%80%94_Portugal_Extradition\" >Abu Salem \u2014 Portugal Extradition<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Section_IX_The_Role_of_the_United_Nations_Interpol\" >Section IX: The Role of the United Nations &amp; Interpol<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#UN_Security_Council_Resolutions\" >UN Security Council Resolutions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Key_UN_Instruments\" >Key UN Instruments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Interpol_Notices\" >Interpol Notices<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#The_Sectoral_Convention_Approach\" >The Sectoral Convention Approach<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Chapter_X_Conclusion_The_Way_Forward\" >Chapter X: Conclusion &amp; The Way Forward<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-42\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#From_Indias_Perspective_Key_Reforms\" >From India&#8217;s Perspective: Key Reforms<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-43\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#At_The_International_Level\" >At The International Level<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-44\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extradition-law-terrorism-legal-barriers-global-gaps-indias-struggle-for-justice\/#Final_Reflection\" >Final Reflection<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>At its core, extradition is a creature of treaty law. In the absence of a treaty, no state is obligated under customary international law to surrender a fugitive. However, States may still exercise extradition on the basis of comity \u2014 the diplomatic courtesy extended between nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-instruments-for-extradition\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Instruments\"><\/span>Key Legal Instruments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)<\/strong> \u2014 Governs treaty obligations between states, including extradition agreements.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>UN Model Treaty on Extradition (1990)<\/strong> \u2014 Provides a template for bilateral extradition agreements, recognising dual criminality, political offence exceptions, and speciality principles.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Convention against Torture (CAT, 1984), Art. 3<\/strong> \u2014 Prohibits the transfer of persons to States where they face a risk of torture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)<\/strong> \u2014 Protects the right to life and a fair trial, which constrain extradition decisions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"global-extradition-framework-gap\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Global_Extradition_Framework_Gap\"><\/span>Global Extradition Framework Gap<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Crucially, no universally binding multilateral extradition convention exists. This is the very structural gap that allows terrorism suspects to evade justice across jurisdictions. States negotiate individual bilateral treaties, creating a fragmented and inconsistent global extradition regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"political-offence-exception\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_II_The_Political_Offence_Exception\"><\/span>Section II: The Political Offence Exception<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>One of the oldest and most contentious barriers to extradition is the political offence exception. Most extradition treaties contain a clause that allows the requested State to refuse surrender if the offence is &#8220;of a political character.&#8221; Historically, this doctrine was conceived to protect political dissidents and revolutionaries from oppressive regimes \u2014 not to shield terrorists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The problem arises when terrorist acts are characterised as politically motivated. A requested State may invoke this exception to deny extradition, particularly where it has sympathy with the accused&#8217;s political cause. Pakistan&#8217;s refusal to extradite individuals accused of terror attacks in India has often been clouded by precisely this political dimension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"attentat-clause-limitations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Attentat_Clause_Its_Limitations\"><\/span>The Attentat Clause &amp; Its Limitations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In response to 19th-century political assassinations, the &#8216;attentat clause&#8217; emerged in European treaty practice, excluding the murder of heads of State from political offence protection. Modern multilateral terrorism conventions have extended this logic \u2014 providing that acts of terrorism, by definition, cannot qualify as political offences eligible for exception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"relevant-conventions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Relevant_Conventions\"><\/span>Relevant Conventions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The following international instruments explicitly limit or exclude the application of the political offence exception in cases of terrorism:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Convention<\/th><th>Year<\/th><th>Key Provision<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings<\/td><td>1997<\/td><td>Art. 11 \u2014 Expressly excludes terrorist bombings from the political offence exception.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism<\/td><td>1999<\/td><td>Art. 14 \u2014 Similarly excludes terrorism financing from the exception.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Montreal Convention<\/td><td>1971<\/td><td>Civil aviation offences (including hijacking) are excluded from political offence protection.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"enforcement-challenges\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Enforcement_Challenges\"><\/span>Enforcement Challenges<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite these instruments, enforcement remains patchy. A requested State retains the practical discretion to characterise an act as political, even where treaty obligations technically prohibit it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>States may interpret &#8220;political character&#8221; subjectively<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Diplomatic relations often influence extradition decisions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Treaty obligations lack strong enforcement mechanisms<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This is a sovereignty problem, not merely a legal one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;Terrorism is never a political offence \u2014 it is a crime against humanity. Yet international law still affords States the discretion to see it otherwise.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-iii-non-refoulement-principle\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_III_The_Non-Refoulement_Principle\"><\/span>Section III: The Non-Refoulement Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The principle of <strong>non-refoulement<\/strong> \u2014 derived from the French word <em>refouler<\/em>, meaning to push back \u2014 is a cornerstone of international refugee and human rights law. It prohibits States from transferring a person to a territory where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While originally a refugee law concept enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention (Art. 33), non-refoulement has evolved into a broader human rights norm applicable to all persons, including terrorism suspects, by virtue of its incorporation into the CAT and ICCPR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-provisions-non-refoulement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Provisions\"><\/span>Legal Provisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), Art. 33(1)<\/strong> \u2014 &#8216;No Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened.&#8217;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Convention Against Torture (CAT), Art. 3<\/strong> \u2014 &#8216;No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.&#8217;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Soering v. UK (1989)<\/strong> \u2014 The ECHR applied Art. 3 ECHR to prevent extradition to the US where the applicant would face the &#8216;death row phenomenon.&#8217;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-instruments-table\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Instruments_and_Principles\"><\/span>Key Legal Instruments and Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Instrument \/ Case<\/th><th>Key Principle<\/th><th>Relevance to Extradition<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1951 Refugee Convention (Art. 33)<\/td><td>Prohibits return to danger<\/td><td>Foundation of non-refoulement<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Convention Against Torture (Art. 3)<\/td><td>Prohibits transfer where torture risk exists<\/td><td>Applies universally, including suspects<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Soering v. UK (1989)<\/td><td>Protection from inhuman treatment<\/td><td>Blocks extradition due to death penalty conditions<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The tension is acute: the requesting State demands extradition for heinous terrorist crimes; the requested State&#8217;s human rights obligations prevent surrender if the accused faces torture or an unfair trial. This played out in India&#8217;s failed attempts to extradite Dawood Ibrahim from Pakistan and in numerous European refusals to extradite suspects to the United States where capital punishment is applicable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"diplomatic-assurances\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Diplomatic_Assurances_An_Imperfect_Solution\"><\/span>Diplomatic Assurances: An Imperfect Solution<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Some States have sought to navigate this tension through diplomatic assurances \u2014 formal guarantees by the requesting State that the accused will not be tortured or executed. However, as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has noted, such assurances are legally unenforceable and historically unreliable, particularly when sought from States with a documented record of human rights abuses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-iv-dual-criminality-specialty-doctrine\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_IV_Dual_Criminality_and_the_Specialty_Doctrine\"><\/span>Section IV: Dual Criminality and the Specialty Doctrine<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"dual-criminality\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dual_Criminality\"><\/span>Dual Criminality<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The principle of dual criminality (or double criminality) requires that the conduct alleged must constitute a criminal offence in both the requesting and the requested State. If an act is not criminalised in the requested State, it cannot be the basis for extradition \u2014 regardless of how grave the offence appears to the requesting State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the counter-terrorism context, this creates real gaps. Terrorist financing, association with a proscribed organisation, or preparatory acts may not be equally criminalised across jurisdictions. An accused who is a senior figure in a designated terrorist organisation in India may not face equivalent charges in the requested State, frustrating extradition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"indian-law-dual-criminality\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Indian_Law\"><\/span>Indian Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Extradition Act, 1962 (India), S. 2(c)<\/strong> \u2014 Defines &#8216;extradition offence&#8217; with reference to a schedule of offences, requiring dual criminality for non-treaty extraditions. Offences must carry a minimum sentence of one year under both legal systems.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"specialty-doctrine\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Specialty_Doctrine\"><\/span>The Specialty Doctrine<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Equally important is the specialty principle \u2014 once extradited, a person can be tried only for the specific offences for which extradition was granted, and not for any other offence committed prior to extradition. This prevents requesting States from using the extradition process as a pretext to prosecute an accused for collateral or politically motivated charges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"specialty-doctrine-impact\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Practical_Impact_of_the_Specialty_Doctrine\"><\/span>Practical Impact of the Specialty Doctrine<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Impact<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Scope of Trial<\/td><td>Limited to offences listed in extradition request<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Prosecutorial Flexibility<\/td><td>Restricted for requesting State<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Risk<\/td><td>Accused may avoid liability for related offences<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>In practice, this limits the requesting State&#8217;s prosecutorial flexibility and may allow a terrorism suspect to escape liability for ancillary offences (such as criminal conspiracy, arms trafficking, or money laundering) that were not included in the extradition request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"stateless-terrorists-non-state-actors\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_V_Stateless_Terrorists_Non-State_Actors\"><\/span>Section V: Stateless Terrorists &amp; Non-State Actors<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Extradition law is fundamentally State-centric \u2014 it operates between sovereigns. When the accused is a stateless person, a foreign fighter, a member of a transnational terrorist network (such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS), or operates from ungoverned territories, the extradition framework collapses entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Non-State actors present a sui generis problem. There is no sovereign to which a request can be addressed, no treaty relationship to invoke, and no jurisdiction willing or able to surrender the accused. The Islamic State&#8217;s territorial collapse in Syria and Iraq left thousands of foreign fighters in jurisdictions that lacked both the capacity and willingness to prosecute them \u2014 let alone extradite them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"jurisdictional-vacuum\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Jurisdictional_Vacuum\"><\/span>Jurisdictional Vacuum<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>No State may be responsible for or willing to acknowledge a terrorist operative who operates across multiple jurisdictions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"statelessness\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statelessness\"><\/span>Statelessness<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Where the accused has no nationality, the requesting State cannot identify a counterpart with whom to negotiate extradition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"failed-state-situations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Failed_State_Situations\"><\/span>Failed State Situations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Fugitives sheltering in States with collapsed governance (e.g., Somalia, Libya) cannot be extradited through normal channels.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"proxy-use-by-hostile-states\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Proxy_Use_by_Hostile_States\"><\/span>Proxy Use by Hostile States<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Some States covertly harbour and support terrorist actors, making extradition requests politically moot even where treaties exist.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"absence-of-extradition-treaties\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_VI_Absence_of_Extradition_Treaties\"><\/span>Section VI: Absence of Extradition Treaties<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Perhaps the most practical and immediate obstacle to extradition is the sheer absence of bilateral extradition treaties between key States. The international extradition regime is not multilateral \u2014 it is an archipelago of bilateral agreements, riddled with gaps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>India has extradition treaties with approximately 50 countries, leaving a large number of States \u2014 including several that are known to harbour India-designated terrorists \u2014 outside the treaty framework. Where no treaty exists, extradition depends on comity, reciprocity, and diplomatic goodwill \u2014 all of which are inherently fragile and politically contingent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"country-treaty-status-india\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Country_Treaty_Status_With_India\"><\/span>Country Treaty Status With India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Country<\/th><th>Treaty Status With India<\/th><th>Significance<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Pakistan<\/td><td>No extradition treaty<\/td><td>Key sanctuary; Dawood Ibrahim, Masood Azhar<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>UAE<\/td><td>Treaty (2000)<\/td><td>Used successfully; several extraditions achieved<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>United Kingdom<\/td><td>Treaty (1992)<\/td><td>Vijay Mallya case; ongoing litigation<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>United States<\/td><td>Treaty (1997)<\/td><td>Warren Anderson (Bhopal); political factors frustrated extradition<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>China<\/td><td>No extradition treaty<\/td><td>Relevant given cross-border terror financing routes<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"indian-statutory-framework\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Indian_Statutory_Framework\"><\/span>Indian Statutory Framework<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Extradition Act, 1962 (India), S. 3<\/strong> \u2014 Applies in relation to &#8216;extradition countries&#8217; as notified by the Central Government. Without such notification, India cannot extradite to that State or seek extradition from it as a matter of right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Section 34A<\/strong> \u2014 Enables extradition even to non-treaty countries on a case-by-case basis, subject to satisfaction of the Central Government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"indias-extradition-framework\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_VII_Indias_Extradition_Framework\"><\/span>Section VII: India&#8217;s Extradition Framework<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>India&#8217;s domestic legal architecture on extradition is primarily governed by the Extradition Act, 1962, which consolidates and amends the earlier law on extradition. It is supplemented by counter-terrorism statutes that define the offences for which extradition may be sought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"extradition-act-1962-key-provisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Extradition_Act_1962_%E2%80%94_Key_Provisions\"><\/span>Extradition Act, 1962 \u2014 Key Provisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"statutory-provisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Provisions\"><\/span>Statutory Provisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Section<\/th><th>Provision Summary<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Section 2(c)<\/td><td>Defines &#8216;extradition offence&#8217; to include offences punishable with imprisonment of one year or more, as specified in the Schedule.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 5<\/td><td>No fugitive criminal shall be surrendered unless the offence is covered by the extradition treaty and satisfies dual criminality.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 7<\/td><td>A Magistrate is designated to inquire into the evidence and determine whether a prima facie case exists.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 21<\/td><td>Specialty protection: a person extradited to India shall not be tried for any offence other than the extradition offence.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"counter-terrorism-legislation-extraditable-offences\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Counter-Terrorism_Legislation_Extraditable_Offences\"><\/span>Counter-Terrorism Legislation &amp; Extraditable Offences<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"relevant-indian-statutes\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Relevant_Indian_Statutes\"><\/span>Relevant Indian Statutes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)<\/strong> \u2014 India&#8217;s primary counter-terrorism law. Defines &#8216;terrorist act&#8217; under S. 15, designates &#8216;terrorist organisations&#8217; under S. 35, and criminalises membership, support, and financing of terrorism. UAPA offences are extradition-eligible under the Act&#8217;s Schedule.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Indian Penal Code \/ Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/strong> \u2014 Offences of conspiracy, waging war against the State (S. 121 IPC), and sedition are relevant bases for extradition requests in terrorism-adjacent cases.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)<\/strong> \u2014 Terrorism financing, being a &#8216;scheduled offence&#8217; under PMLA, enables India to seek extradition for financial enablers of terrorism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"role-of-the-executive\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Role_of_the_Executive\"><\/span>The Role of the Executive<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Unlike many common law jurisdictions, India&#8217;s extradition process vests significant discretion in the Central Government. Even where a Magistrate&#8217;s inquiry finds a prima facie case, the ultimate decision to surrender a fugitive is an executive act. This creates the risk that diplomatic or political considerations may override legal obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"landmark-cases-diplomatic-failures\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_VIII_Landmark_Cases_Diplomatic_Failures\"><\/span>Section VIII: Landmark Cases &amp; Diplomatic Failures<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"dawood-ibrahim-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dawood_Ibrahim\"><\/span>Dawood Ibrahim<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The most glaring case is that of Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, the alleged mastermind of the 1993 Bombay serial blasts that killed 257 persons. India has repeatedly sought his extradition from Pakistan, which officially denies his presence on Pakistani soil \u2014 a denial widely contradicted by intelligence assessments and a 2015 UN designation of Dawood as a global terrorist. Without a bilateral extradition treaty and with Pakistan&#8217;s political unwillingness, the legal avenues are exhausted before they can begin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"masood-azhar-unsc-listing\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Masood_Azhar_UNSC_Listing\"><\/span>Masood Azhar &amp; UNSC Listing<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The case of Masood Azhar, founder of Jaish-e-Mohammed and designated under UNSC Resolution 1267 (Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee), illustrates how China&#8217;s veto in the Security Council blocked his listing for years \u2014 a direct example of geopolitics frustrating the legal counter-terrorism architecture. He was finally listed in 2019, but extradition remains a non-starter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"vijay-mallya-uk-courts-echr-concerns\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Vijay_Mallya_%E2%80%94_UK_Courts_ECHR_Concerns\"><\/span>Vijay Mallya \u2014 UK Courts &amp; ECHR Concerns<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>While not a terrorism case, Government of India v. Vijay Mallya (2018, Westminster Magistrates&#8217; Court) demonstrates how UK courts extensively scrutinise prison conditions in India under Art. 3 ECHR (protection against inhuman or degrading treatment). This framework \u2014 applicable equally to terrorism cases \u2014 shows the procedural density of the UK extradition process under the Extradition Act 2003 (UK).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"abu-salem-portugal-extradition\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Abu_Salem_%E2%80%94_Portugal_Extradition\"><\/span>Abu Salem \u2014 Portugal Extradition<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The extradition of Abu Salem from Portugal in 2005 was a rare success story, though complicated. Portugal agreed to extradition only on the condition that India would not impose capital punishment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court of India, in Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 11 SCC 214, upheld the specialty conditions attached by Portugal, confirming that extradition conditions are binding on India and cannot be unilaterally altered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"role-of-united-nations-interpol\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_IX_The_Role_of_the_United_Nations_Interpol\"><\/span>Section IX: The Role of the United Nations &amp; Interpol<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"un-security-council-resolutions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"UN_Security_Council_Resolutions\"><\/span>UN Security Council Resolutions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The UN Security Council has been increasingly active in building a counter-terrorism legal architecture. UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001), adopted in the aftermath of 9\/11, is among the most significant \u2014 it is binding under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and obliges all member states to criminalise terrorism, freeze terrorist assets, and deny safe haven to terrorists. Critically, it calls on States to bring terrorists to justice but does not create an obligation to extradite in the absence of a treaty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-un-instruments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_UN_Instruments\"><\/span>Key UN Instruments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Instrument<\/th><th>Key Provisions<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001)<\/td><td>Requires States to deny safe haven and support to terrorists; establishes the Counter-Terrorism Committee.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>UNSC Resolutions 1267 (1999) &amp; 2253 (2015)<\/td><td>Establish the ISIS\/Al-Qaeda Sanctions List; listed individuals are subject to asset freezes and travel bans \u2014 but not automatic extradition obligations.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (2006, A\/RES\/60\/288)<\/td><td>Calls for strengthening extradition cooperation and the principle of aut dedere aut judicare.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"interpol-notices\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interpol_Notices\"><\/span>Interpol Notices<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>INTERPOL&#8217;s Red Notice system is often misunderstood as an international arrest warrant \u2014 it is not. A Red Notice is a request to law enforcement agencies worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a fugitive pending extradition. Compliance is voluntary; INTERPOL itself has no powers of arrest. India has issued Red Notices against numerous terrorism suspects, including Dawood Ibrahim, with largely symbolic effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sectoral-convention-approach\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Sectoral_Convention_Approach\"><\/span>The Sectoral Convention Approach<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Since the 1960s, the UN has adopted a series of sectoral counter-terrorism conventions covering specific modalities of terrorism \u2013 aviation hijacking, hostage-taking, nuclear terrorism, terrorist financing, etc. Each contains an &#8216;aut dedere aut judicare&#8217; obligation. However, because these conventions are not self-executing and depend on bilateral treaty implementation, they have not bridged the fundamental gaps in extradition law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion-way-forward\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Chapter_X_Conclusion_The_Way_Forward\"><\/span>Chapter X: Conclusion &amp; The Way Forward<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The extradition of terrorists remains one of the most intractable challenges at the intersection of international law, human rights, and geopolitics. The existing framework is structurally fragile \u2014 premised on bilateral treaty networks that are incomplete, on sovereign discretion that is easily captured by politics, and on human rights protections that, while vital, are routinely weaponised to shield the guilty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"india-perspective-reforms\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"From_Indias_Perspective_Key_Reforms\"><\/span>From India&#8217;s Perspective: Key Reforms<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Negotiating extradition treaties with Pakistan and other states that harbour India-designated terrorists;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Strengthening MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) frameworks to gather evidence across borders;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Pursuing multilateral instruments that mandate extradition for UN-listed terrorist entities without requiring bilateral treaty preconditions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"international-level-challenges\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"At_The_International_Level\"><\/span>At The International Level<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>At the international level, the long-discussed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism \u2014 stalled at the UN since 1996 \u2014 remains the most ambitious and unfulfilled aspiration. Until a comprehensive multilateral legal framework is achieved, the extradition of terrorists will continue to be hostage to geopolitics rather than governed by law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-reflection\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Reflection\"><\/span>Final Reflection<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>As students and future practitioners of law, what we must recognise is that the gap between the lex lata (law as it exists) and the lex ferenda (law as it ought to be) in this domain is not merely academic \u2014 it has a body count.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>About organised crimes and criminal laws against extradition of terrorists.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":691,"featured_media":23120,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[4798,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-23121","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-criminal-law","8":"tag-criminal-law","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/download-5-1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/691"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23121"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23160,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23121\/revisions\/23160"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23120"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}