Extradition: A Cornerstone of International Cooperation in Combating Crime

By Simran Views: 15465

Typically, when a person is accused or found guilty of a criminal offence, legal action takes place within the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. However, complexities arise when the individual flees to another nation to evade legal accountability or avoid serving their sentence.

In the modern global landscape, where international mobility and cross-border connections are prevalent, criminal acts frequently surpass national boundaries. Meanwhile, law enforcement jurisdiction remains restricted to national limits. This mismatch creates substantial barriers to effective justice. Extradition becomes a vital process through which nations collaborate to apprehend and return individuals who have escaped prosecution or punishment by crossing borders. It broadens the scope of domestic law enforcement, enabling countries to deal with cross-border crime more efficiently in the era of globalization.

In such circumstances, the country where the crime was committed formally asks the country where the offender is located to hand them over. This official and legal mechanism, known as extradition, allows the transfer of the accused or convicted individual to the state where legal proceedings or sentencing must take place.

Simply put, extradition is the legal process through which one country—the "requested state"—returns a person to another—the "requesting state"—to face criminal charges or serve a sentence. The person involved may be awaiting trial, already convicted, or an escaped convict.

This system emphasizes the bilateral nature of extradition: the state where the accused is found and the state seeking to prosecute or punish the individual.

What is Extradition:
The term "extradition" comes from the Latin words ex (meaning "out") and traditio (meaning "handing over"). It is based on the principle aut dedere aut judicare, which means "either extradite or prosecute." This underscores the global duty of states to either take action against criminals or hand them over to another state willing to do so.

As crimes increasingly cross borders, especially with advancements in international travel and technology, countries have found it essential to establish cooperative legal systems. Extradition supports this cooperation by ensuring that criminals cannot escape punishment simply by relocating to another jurisdiction.

The purpose of this article is to examine how extradition operates as a tool for international justice. It explores the legal principles behind it, highlights landmark case studies, and outlines the legal procedures, frameworks, and challenges involved.

The philosophy behind extradition:
Oppenheim defines extradition as the act of delivering a person, who is accused or convicted of a crime, from the state where they are present to the state where the offence was committed or adjudicated.

In the case of Terlinden v. Ames, Chief Justice Fuller described extradition as the process through which one nation transfers a person to another country where the crime took place and where the legal system seeks to try or punish that person.

Black's Law Dictionary defines extradition as the process where a country surrenders a person accused or convicted of an offence committed outside its territory to another country which has the legal right to try or punish the individual.

J.G. Starke, in Introduction to International Law, explains extradition as a formal process governed by treaties, where one nation hands over an accused or convicted person to another, upon request, for offences committed within the requesting state's jurisdiction.

Though extradition is grounded in international obligations, its actual execution depends on domestic laws and procedures of the country being asked to surrender the person.
In the case of State of West Bengal v. Jugal Kishore, the Indian Supreme Court described extradition as the act of one nation handing over an individual to another nation for crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the latter's courts.

Additionally, Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Schedule VII, List I, Entry 18 of the Indian Constitution, legally recognizes the process of transferring a fugitive to the state where the crime was committed.

Purpose of Extradition:
- Crime Prevention: Extradition plays a key role in ensuring that criminal actions do not go unpunished due to borders, especially when offenders escape from the jurisdiction where the offence occurred.
- Deterrence: It serves as a warning to potential offenders that international borders do not offer protection from legal action.
- Maintaining National Security: By refusing to extradite, a country may unintentionally become a refuge for criminals, endangering its own safety and weakening its judicial credibility.
- Diplomatic Relations: Granting extradition often enhances bilateral ties and mutual legal cooperation, showing goodwill and shared respect for legal norms.
- International Legal Order: Extradition reflects collective global efforts to uphold law and order through multilateral and bilateral treaties.
Principles of Extradition:
- Principle of Reciprocity: This principle ensures that both countries in an extradition agreement are willing to assist each other in surrendering fugitives. It reflects mutual respect and balance in legal cooperation, and may also extend to other areas like trade or diplomatic recognition.
- Principle of Double Criminality: A person can only be extradited if the alleged offence is recognized as a crime in both the requesting and requested states. This condition protects individuals from being extradited for acts that are not punishable in the country where they are found.
- Principle of Double Jeopardy: A fundamental safeguard ensuring that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence. If someone has already been tried and either acquitted or convicted, they cannot be extradited for the same charge, unless new legal conditions are met.
- Principle of Speciality: This doctrine states that the extradited person can only be tried or punished for the specific offences listed in the extradition request. Any additional charges require either consent from the surrendering state or the person's voluntary return.
Prerequisites for Extradition:
Extradition does not rely on a single universal code. Instead, it is shaped by a combination of national laws and international agreements. Each country's municipal law outlines the procedure and conditions under which it will surrender individuals to other states. While local courts handle extradition proceedings, they must also consider international treaties, customary practices, and human rights obligations when making decisions. Most extraditions are based on bilateral agreements, which define mutual responsibilities and ensure that both countries follow agreed procedures, aligning domestic laws with global legal expectations. Over time, certain consistent practices have evolved into widely accepted international principles.
International Model Laws on Extradition:
- United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition (1990): This model treaty serves as a guideline for countries looking to formalize extradition agreements. Though not binding, it offers a reference for legal systems developing or refining their extradition laws. It includes key provisions like grounds for refusal and adherence to the principle of speciality.
- United Nations Model Law on Extradition (2004): Developed to assist countries lacking detailed extradition laws, this model law supplements domestic legislation. It emphasizes human rights protections—such as barring extradition if the individual faces risks of persecution, torture, or discrimination in the requesting state.
Challenges in Extradition Law:
Although the Geneva Conventions primarily focus on humanitarian protections during armed conflicts, they also stress the importance of cross-border collaboration, including in extradition. As a result, most countries today are party to numerous bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties. For instance, the United States has active extradition treaties with over 100 nations. Additionally, many countries incorporate extradition clauses directly into their national criminal laws, thereby reinforcing a legal framework that supports the surrender of fugitives across borders.
Extradition under Indian Law:
India's legal foundation for extradition is the Extradition Act, 1962. Under this Act, a person can only be extradited if the conditions laid out are satisfied. This Act consists of 37 sections and replaced the earlier system based on the British Extradition Act of 1870. India currently maintains extradition treaties with 48 countries, with the most recent being with Afghanistan (2016).
The Extradition Act (1962)
The schedule attached to the 1962 Act outlines which crimes are extraditable, explicitly excluding political offences.
1. Key Provisions:
  - Section 34: Allows Indian authorities to exercise jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, treating them as if they were committed within India.
  - Section 2(c)(i): Defines an extradition treaty as a formal agreement between two or more states for the return of offenders.
  - Section 3(4): Enables the Indian government to treat an international convention as a treaty for extradition purposes, even if no formal treaty exists.
  - Section 2(f): Defines a "fugitive criminal" as someone:
    - Accused or convicted of a crime in a foreign country, or
    - Involved in planning, attempting, or assisting with an extraditable offence while in India.
  - Section 2(c): States that an "extradition offence" must either:
    - Be listed in the relevant treaty, or
    - Be punishable by at least one year of imprisonment under Indian or foreign law.
Restrictions on Surrender Under Indian Law
Indian law imposes certain restrictions on the surrender (extradition) of individuals. A person cannot be extradited if the offense is political, if they may face discrimination or unfair treatment, or if the offense is not recognized as a crime in India (dual criminality principle). Extradition is also barred if the individual risks the death penalty without assurance of commutation, or if the extradition request is deemed malicious or oppressive.
Procedure for Extradition in India
Extradition in India is governed by the Extradition Act, 1962. The process begins when a formal request is received from a foreign country. The Ministry of External Affairs examines the request, and if satisfied, forwards it to the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate conducts an inquiry to determine if a prima facie case exists. If so, the matter returns to the Central Government, which ultimately decides whether to surrender the individual.
1. Procedure for Extradition from India
  When a foreign country requests extradition from India, the following steps occur:
  - The request is sent to the Ministry of External Affairs.
  - After preliminary assessment, the case is referred to a Magistrate for inquiry.
  - The Magistrate issues an arrest warrant and conducts a judicial inquiry.
  - If a prima facie case is established, the Magistrate commits the person to custody.
  - The Central Government then authorizes the extradition, considering humanitarian and legal standards.
2. Procedure for Extradition to India
  When India seeks extradition of a fugitive from another country:
  - The Indian government sends a formal extradition request through diplomatic channels, typically including evidence of the offense.
  - The requested country examines the case under its domestic laws and any applicable treaty with India.
  - If satisfied, the country's legal system processes and authorizes extradition, leading to the fugitive being handed over to Indian authorities.
Notable Cases of International Extradition
1. Abu Salem Case
  Background:
  - Abu Salem, a member of Dawood Ibrahim's crime syndicate, was involved in multiple offences including the 1993 Mumbai bombings.
  - After fleeing India, he travelled through Dubai and the USA before settling in Portugal.
  - Despite the absence of an extradition treaty at the time, India requested his return under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
  Assurances by India:
  - He would be prosecuted only for listed crimes.
  - He wouldn't be extradited to another country.
  - He wouldn't receive the death penalty or a sentence over 25 years.
  Outcome:
  - The Portuguese Supreme Court approved the extradition in 2005.
  - Although Salem later claimed a violation of the rule of speciality, the Indian Supreme Court in Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari v. CBI & Anr (2021) upheld the extradition, noting Portugal did not formally object.
2. Nirav Modi Case
  Background:
  - Businessman Nirav Modi was accused of defrauding Punjab National Bank of ₹11,400 crores using fake Letters of Undertaking.
  - After fleeing to the UK, a Red Corner Notice was issued by Interpol. India formally requested his extradition in 2018.
  Legal Arguments by Modi:
  - PNB officials were aware of the transactions.
  - Indian investigators misunderstood the commercial nature of the deals.
  Decision:
  - The UK court accepted India's extradition request.
  - While his removal is pending due to legal appeals, the court ruled that India had provided adequate evidence, and Mumbai's Arthur Road Jail met minimum standards.
3. Vijay Mallya Case
  Background:
  - Vijay Mallya, former Kingfisher Airlines owner, defaulted on loans totalling over ₹6,000 crores and fled to the UK in 2016.
  - India requested his extradition in 2017.
  Ruling:
  - The Westminster Magistrates' Court approved his extradition in 2018.
  - His subsequent appeals were denied, but bureaucratic delays have prevented his return.
  - He was also declared a Fugitive Economic Offender under Indian law in 2019.
4. Kishan Singh Case
  Background:
  - Kishan Singh, an Indian national who became a UK citizen in 2015, was linked to an international drug trafficking network.
  Outcome:
  - Despite arguing poor jail conditions and risk of unfair trial, the UK court ordered his extradition.
  - His appeals in the UK High Court and European Court of Human Rights were dismissed, and he was sent back to India.
5. Sucha Singh Case
  Background:
  - Sucha Singh was accused of assassinating former Punjab Chief Minister Partap Singh Kairon in 1965.
  - He escaped to Nepal.
  Outcome:
  - Under the 1953 Extradition Treaty between India and Nepal, he was extradited and executed in 1969.
Role of Extradition in Crime Prevention
Extradition plays a crucial role in global crime control. It helps states:
- Address transnational crime.
- Prevent fugitives from escaping justice.
- Strengthen international legal collaboration, especially in areas like terrorism and organized crime.
Countries like the USA insist on formal treaties before agreeing to extradite. However, many nations increasingly cooperate under international conventions. High-profile cases—such as those of Abu Salem, Nirav Modi, and Vijay Mallya—illustrate how extradition strengthens justice systems worldwide.

Conclusion
Extradition is a key element of international legal cooperation. With crimes increasingly crossing borders, efficient extradition systems are vital. However, obstacles like legal gaps, procedural delays, and absence of treaties often delay justice.

A well-structured global framework for extradition can enhance security and ensure accountability, promoting fairness across borders.

Suggestions for Reform

Global Consensus: International organizations should advocate for consistent extradition rules.
Special Regional Courts: Establish tribunals to handle global crimes free from political influence.
Mutual Legal Respect: Countries must honor shared legal standards, especially on double criminality and speciality.
Enforcement Mechanisms: Non-compliant states should face sanctions such as travel bans or diplomatic restrictions.
UN Oversight: Classify international terrorism as a crime against the United Nations, subject to its prosecution.
Legal Harmonization: Encourage national laws to align with international norms.
UN-Backed Institutions: Develop global extradition enforcement agencies.
Individual Accountability: Sanction leaders who obstruct justice through misuse of state power.