‘Extradition in International law with Specific Reference to India.’

Reading time : 12 minutes


The process of Extradition, in International law is the cycle by which one state, upon the solicitation of another, impacts the arrival of an individual for preliminary for a wrongdoing deserving of the laws of the mentioning state and perpetrated outside the condition of shelter. Extraditable people incorporate those accused of a wrongdoing yet not attempted, those attempted and sentenced who have gotten away from guardianship, and those indicted in absentia[1]. The solicitation recognizes the process of Extradition from different measures like expulsion, extradition which likewise bring about the coercive evacuation of unwanted people. As per the rule of territoriality of criminal law, states don’t matter their correctional laws to acts carried out external their limits besides in the assurance of exceptional public interests. In assisting with stifling wrongdoing, notwithstanding, states for the most part have been willing to participate in dealing with criminals. The process of Extradition is directed inside nations by The Extradition acts and between nations by political arrangements[2]. The principal act accommodating the process of Extradition was received in 1833 by Belgium, which likewise passed the main law on the right to haven. The process of Extradition acts indicate the wrongdoings that are extraditable, explain the process of Extradition methods and defends, and specify the connection between the demonstration and worldwide arrangements. Public laws vary incredibly in regards to the connection between the Extradition acts and arrangements[3]. In the United States, The process of Extradition might be conceded simply according to a settlement and just if Congress has not enacted unexpectedly, a circumstance that likewise exists in Britain, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Germany and Switzerland remove without a proper show in situations where their legislatures and the mentioning state have traded announcements of correspondence[4]. Despite the fact that there has been a long-standing pattern toward denying The process of Extradition demands without a limiting global commitment, escapees are in some cases gave up by states based on civil law, or as a demonstration of generosity. By the by, nations that don’t have The process of Extradition concurrences with certain different nations (or as to particular sorts of offense) have been viewed as places of refuge for outlaws[5].

International Perspective:

A few standards of the process of Extradition are normal to numerous nations. For instance, numerous states decrease any commitment to give up their own nationals; to be sure, the constitutions of Slovenia and, until 1997, Colombia precluded the the process of Extradition of their nationals[6]. In Argentina, Britain, and the United States, nationals might be removed just if the administering the process of Extradition deal approves it. Another normal rule is twofold culpability, which specifies that the supposed wrongdoing for which the process of Extradition is being looked for should be criminal in both the requesting and the mentioned nations. Under the guideline of particularity, the requesting state can arraign the extraditee just for the offense for which the process of Extradition was conceded and may not remove the prisoner to a third country for offenses submitted before the underlying the process of Extradition. Despite the fact that states have perceived certain exemptions for this rule and a few guidelines permit the extraditee to postpone it is basic to the activity of the right of shelter[7]. On the off chance that the requesting state were allowed to attempt an extraditee for any offense that fit its motivations e.g., for a political offense, the right of haven would endure under both public and worldwide law. Quite possibly the most disputable issues identifying with the process of Extradition is the special case for most political offenses, a standard provision in most the process of Extradition laws and deals that gives the mentioned express the option to decline the process of Extradition for political violations[8]. Albeit this special case seemingly has procured the situation with an overall standard of law, its commonsense application is a long way from settled. The advancement of worldwide law and the improvement of an almost widespread agreement censuring certain types of criminal direct have confined the guideline’s extension with the goal that it presently bars the most appalling of global violations, e.g., slaughter, atrocities, and wrongdoings against mankind[9]. Aside from these and a couple of different cases, nonetheless, there is next to no concurrence on what comprises a political wrongdoing, and states would thus be able to practice significant attentiveness in applying the political offense special case. Worldwide and cross line wrongdoings represent an exceptional test concerning identification, capture, The process of Extradition and preliminary. With the partnered wrongdoings including violations by psychological militant and medication cartels just as individual criminal offenses on the ascent, it has gotten progressively significant for each nation to characterize its privileges and commitments in battling global wrongdoing and to set out the fair treatment of law in looking for capture, cross examination, give up and move of suspected people and possible preliminary and conviction[10]. Towards this objective, most nations have received broad the process of Extradition system. In the new past India has likewise endured mishaps with numerous escapees leaving India to stay away from criminal arraignment, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi, Vijay Mallya to give some examples and this article tries to address the standards of Indian The process of Extradition laws concerning capture and move of outlaws from abroad.

Indian Law:

The Extradition Act of 1962 is the Indian law overseeing the process of Extradition of outlaw lawbreakers to and from India. This essential law is perused alongside the appropriate the process of Extradition settlements, game plans and shows went into by India with different nations, which are perceived under the Extradition Act to look for give up[11]. In case of nonappearance of a The process of Extradition deal or plan with the concerned unfamiliar State, the Indian Government may, by informed request, treat any show to which India and an unfamiliar State are parties, as a The process of Extradition settlement made by India with that unfamiliar State accommodating The process of Extradition in regard of the offenses determined in that show. Section 2(c) of the Extradition Act arranges The process of Extradition offenses as (a) offenses indicated in the the process of Extradition settlement with an unfamiliar State, being a deal State, or potentially (b) offenses culpable with detainment for a base term of one year under the laws of India or of an unfamiliar State, remembering a composite offense for connection to the unfamiliar State other than a deal State. Section 2(d) of the Extradition Act characterizes a The process of Extradition deal as a settlement, understanding or game plan among India and an unfamiliar State identifying with The process of Extradition of outlaw hoodlums[12].

The process of Extradition Treaties:

India has marked two-sided the process of Extradition deals with upwards of 42 nations and has The process of Extradition game plans with 9 nations, to remove outlaw crooks to and from its region[13]. A portion of the necessities for or potentially exclusions from the process of Extradition, which are normal under most settlements, are examined as under:

(i) Extradition of Nationals:

India permits the process of Extradition of nationals dependent on the guideline of correspondence among Indian and unfamiliar States as concurred under the the process of Extradition arrangements. The process of Extradition arrangements with nations, for example, USA, UK, Mauritius and so on, grant give up and move of outlaw nationals to the deal State[14]. In any case, the process of Extradition deals among India and certain nations like France, Germany, Spain, Bulgaria, Bahrain, don’t allow the process of Extradition by India and the unfamiliar States of its individual nationals. The prohibition applies to the two cases, for example where the process of Extradition is looked for,

(a) For confronting criminal procedures in the mentioning nation

(b) For carrying out a punishment/discipline (or part thereof) in the mentioning nation following criminal procedures in the mentioning country where such public of the mentioned country has been indicted. In such a situation, the mentioning State can demand for inception of criminal procedures against the nationals in the mentioned country for the offenses they are blamed for in the mentioning nation, given such offenses are extraditable offenses which satisfy the prerequisite of double guiltiness (as examined beneath)[15]. The unfamiliar State would ultimately be committed to start criminal procedures against it’s anything but a capable court, if any of the offenses asserted to have been perpetrated in India additionally sum to an offense under the laws of the unfamiliar State. Nationals of third nations dwelling in both of the arrangement countries can anyway be removed to the mentioning country according to the strategy recommended under the separate the process of Extradition deals.

(ii) Dual Criminality of Extraditable Offenses:

Extradition is appropriate just concerning those offenses which are specified in the the process of Extradition deal and the wrongdoing, for which the process of Extradition is looked to India, is perceived as a wrongdoing in the unfamiliar State, culpable with detainment[16]. The mentioned country additionally must be fulfilled of there being a by all appearances argument made out against the outlaw lawbreaker, the criminal should be continued against just for the offense for which his The process of Extradition is looked for global guideline of strength and such criminal should be agreed a reasonable preliminary, are a portion of different conditions for The process of Extradition.

(iii) Provisional Arrest:

Firstly, the the process of Extradition must be looked for compliant with a warrant of capture gave by a court in India. The warrant of capture must be given compliant with the court in India taking insight against the outlaw individual in a forthcoming matter, either all alone or upon a charge sheet by the Police. Furthermore, issuance of a warrant for capture is just the first step in quite a while in the point by point cycle of the process of Extradition of an individual to India to confront criminal procedures as likewise for the issuance of Interpol sees for observation and capture of the denounced individual, when he/she is found. The process of Extradition cycle, beginning with capture warrant, requires accommodation inside India of different subtleties by the Police/court taking insight of the offense against the charged individual through administrative channels to the MEA or the Ministry of External Affairs[17]. The ‘Rules for Indian law authorization offices for the process of Extradition of outlaws from abroad’ by the MEA likewise casually indicate a progression of customs, interaction and archives for the process of Extradition. Notwithstanding capture warrant, the process of Extradition demands require explanation of current realities of the case, portrayal of offenses submitted, at first sight proof, duplicate of legitimate arrangements as likewise an endeavor that if the denounced individual is captured, India would look for the process of Extradition and so on[18].

The Supreme Court has, on account of Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. Territory of Maharashtra’, obviously held that ‘the metropolitan laws of a nation rule in issue of The process of Extradition. It is along these lines for the State worried to take a choice with respect to such Notices, keeping in see the Municipal Laws of the country.’ Passing by the above guideline, if under any condition, some other law of the mentioned State would forbid The process of Extradition of a particular individual to India, such The process of Extradition can be rejected by the said State as well as its courts.

(iv) Other conditions where the process of Extradition might be denied:

Some of the settlements explicitly give extra situations where the process of Extradition solicitations can be denied attributable to lawful and human contemplations, not many of which are as per the following:

(a) In the event that the individual is now going through criminal procedures or a judgment has been articulated by a legal authority of the mentioned country for offenses for which the The process of Extradition is looked for.

(b) On the off chance that the mentioned country has considerable motivations to accept that the solicitation for The process of Extradition was made to arraign/rebuff the individual by virtue of his/her race, religion, identity, ethnic beginning, political sentiments, sex or status or that individual has not gotten/would not get the base assurances in criminal procedures as contained in worldwide pledges[19].

(c) On the off chance that the The process of Extradition would be unfair/abusive due to the: (I) minor nature of the offense of which he/she is denounced/sentenced[20]; (ii) section of time since he/she is claimed to have submitted it or to have gotten unlawfully everywhere, all things considered; or (iii) allegation against him/her was not made in accordance with some basic honesty in light of a legitimate concern for equity.

(d) In the event that the offense of which he/she is blamed for is of a political person and so forth

Issuance of Notices through Interpol:

The Interpol is the worldwide association which helps and works as a team with the police powers of its 192 part nations, by expanding common help and collaboration to recognize, catch and guarantee the acquiescence/conveyance of needed outlaw crooks or missing people[21]. In India, the Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI has been assigned as the National Central Bureau of India. The Interpol issues different kinds of notification to ready just as look for significant data from the police of its part nations. Be that as it may, the notification applicable from the motivation behind the process of Extradition is Red Notices and Blue Notices. For The process of Extradition purposes, Red Notices (otherwise called Red Corner Notices) contain a solicitation for capture of the outlaw criminal so as to in this way remove him/her to the country where he/she is needed[22]. The essential goal of the Red Notice is to immobilize the outlaw criminal in the country where he/she is living, regardless of whether for all time or briefly, by guaranteeing his/her capture by the neighborhood police, resulting to which a conventional solicitation for his/her The process of Extradition is made to the said country by the nation looking for The process of Extradition consequently. Some of the time, the police may utilize a Blue Notice to follow the outlaw criminal till such time he/she is in a country with which India has great the process of Extradition settlement and great discretionary relations, and immediately it might look for issuance of a Red Notice followed by the process of Extradition solicitation to such country[23]. The Supreme Court of India, on account of ‘Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. Province of Maharashtra’, has held Red Notices to be true global capture warrants. It is pertinent to take note of that Red Notices must be given by Interpol after a capture warrant has been given by the court in the mentioning country against the outlaw criminal named in the Notice. Moreover, since Red Notices are antecedents to a solicitation for ‘The process of Extradition’, if a The process of Extradition demand can’t ultimately be effective, the Red Notice may become infructuous (as the goal of The process of Extradition solicitation would be preliminary of the outlaw criminal in the mentioning country as per the arrangement arrangements). In any case, a guard can be raised by the police/court for the Red Notice, if area of the outlaw criminal is obscure.

Shared Legal Assistance Treaties:  

Section 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires the Central Government to make complementary courses of action with unfamiliar governments identifying with administration of request, warrants and legal cycles[24]. As per the aforementioned arrangement, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the nodal service for looking for and giving shared lawful help with criminal law matters, has executed respective common lawful help deals on criminal issue ‘MLATs’ with upwards of 39 nations to serve such archives. The greater part of these ‘MLATs’ explicitly indicate that help there under would exclude The process of Extradition or confinement of people so as to remove that individual, move of procedures in criminal issue, and so on The mentioning nation can just look for help of the mentioned country for administration of request counting summons for giving proof, declaration of an observer to aid examinations or criminal procedures in the mentioning country onto an individual dwelling in the mentioned country and to send such declaration to the court of the mentioning country, for use in a forthcoming legitimate challenge or activity[25]. The mentioned nation is then needed to give a proof of administration, and in the event that such assistance is absurd then the purposes behind inability to impact such help. In any case, as far as most ‘MLATs’, no individual present in the mentioned nation can be constrained to aid any examination or to show up as an observer in the procedures in the mentioning nation, besides with willful assent of such individual.

UN Conventions:

Certain shows of the United Nations or the UN likewise incorporate arrangements for the process of Extradition for confronting criminal arraignment as additionally for carrying out punishment, which are perceived by India as it’s anything but a signatory to such shows. These shows are multilateral deals gone into by a few nations principally to advance collaboration between such nations to check exchanging of illegal medications, psychological oppression, tax evasion and dealing[26]. Progressively, there is an inclination of examination offices to summon the arrangements of these shows, without a deal or where the the process of Extradition settlements are not liable to yield useful outcome. An illustration of UN shows to which India is a signatory, is the UN Convention Against Corruption or the UNCOC, which manages offenses of and identifying with debasement, and the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime or the UNCTOC, which manages offenses of and identifying with transnational coordinated violations like dealing. Article 44(2) of the UNCOC recommends The process of Extradition of people regardless of whether the offenses asserted to have been submitted in the mentioning nation are not offenses in the mentioned country and the other way around for example an individual can be removed even without meeting the state of double guiltiness, which is an essential in the vast majority of the the process of Extradition arrangements[27]. Besides, Article 44(13) of the UNCOC specifies that if The process of Extradition, looked for reasons for authorizing a sentence, is rejected in light of the fact that the individual looked for is a public of the mentioned State, the mentioned State will, if its homegrown law so allows and in similarity with the prerequisites of such, endless supply of the mentioning State, consider requirement of the sentence forced under the homegrown law of the mentioning State or the rest of.

Criminal Economic Offenders Ordinance:

India has as of late declared the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018 or Ordinance on April 21, 2018, which permits commencement of different activities against ‘outlaw monetary guilty party’, who escapes the nation in the wake of defaulting on multi-crore bank advances and comparative cases of misrepresentation. ‘Outlaw monetary wrongdoer’ is a person against whom a capture warrant identifying with a booked offense has been given by any court in India, who have left India to keep away from criminal arraignment, or being abroad, decline to get back to India to confront criminal indictment[28]. Timetable offense implies an offense indicated under the timetable to the Ordinance, if the complete worth associated with such offence(s) is Rs. 100 crores or more. Under the Ordinance, certain approved officials can record an application in the extraordinary court for announcing such people as criminal financial wrongdoers. The aforementioned official can likewise, with the authorization of the unique court, temporarily request connection of such people’s properties, even before recording previously mentioned application gave the equivalent is documented inside 30 days from the connection date. Such approved officials have likewise been engaged to direct overview and investigation, search and capture of the guilty party’s properties[29]. When the denounced are proclaimed as outlaw monetary guilty parties, the exceptional court has the ability to arrange seizure of their returns of wrongdoings and properties in India just as abroad by the Indian Government.


Regardless of the broad legal system and working hardware set up to remove people from abroad into India, just 65 criminals have been removed to India since the year 2025 and it is apparent that the acquiescence interaction is very unwieldy and monotonous, regularly requiring a long time to finish and, now and again, they even stay fruitless. Obviously, it empowers the outlaw lawbreakers blamed for offenses in India, to dodge capture and indictment for quite a long time. The Ordinance is a positive development however the drawn out advantages of the Ordinance and its capacity to urge the unfamiliar States to stretch out collaboration to India to facilitate the the process of Extradition cycle stays not yet clear.

[1] McElrath, K. (2000). Extradition. In Unsafe Haven: The United States, the IRA and Political Prisoners (pp. 45-64). LONDON; STERLING, VIRGINIA: Pluto Press.

[2] Hartmann, J. (2008). The Lugovoy Extradition Case. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 57(1), 194-200. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[3] Mackarel, M., & Nash, S. (1997). Extradition and the European Union. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46(4), 948-957. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[4] Warbrick, C. (2007). Recent Developments in UK Extradition Law. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 56(1), 199-208. Retrieved June 29, 2021.


[6] JOHN R. CROOK. (2010). Mixed Record on High-Profile U.S. Extradition Requests. The American Journal of International Law, 104(4).

[7] Customary International Law — Extradition — Eleventh Circuit Holds That “Rule of Specialty” Applies Only When Provided by Treaty. — “United States V. Valencia-Trujillo”, 573 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2009). (2009). Harvard Law Review, 123(2), 572-579. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[8] Saxena, J. (1964). India: The Extradition Act, 1962. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 13(1), 116-138. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[9] Saxena, J. (1964). India: The Extradition Act, 1962. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 13(1), 116-138. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[10] Kashem, M., & Islam, M. (2016). Narendra Modi’s Bangladesh Policy and India–Bangladesh Relations: Challenges and Possible Policy Responses. India Quarterly, 72(3), 250-267. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[11] Brown, D. (1975). Prerogative Powers and Extradition. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 24(1), 127-130. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[12] Trauner, F., & Willems, A. (2016). (Rep.). European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[13] Oliveira, T. (2015). State Immunity and Criminal Proceedings: Why Foreign Officials Cannot Enjoy Immunity Ratione Materiae from the Legal Process of Extradition. In Von Arnauld A., Matz-Lück N., & Odendahl K. (Eds.), German Yearbook of International Law – Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht.: Vol. 57 (2014). (pp. 477-506). BERLIN: Duncker & Humblot GmbH. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[14] MILLER, B. (2016). Civilization on the Continent: Law Reform and Imperial Power. In Borderline Crime: Fugitive Criminals and the Challenge of the Border, 1819-1914 (pp. 152-180). Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[15] Hopkins, J. (2002). Extradition. Jurisdiction. The Cambridge Law Journal, 61(2), 239-242. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[16] Criscitelli, S. (2005). The Extradition Question: Immunity and the Head of State. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 6(1), 81-86. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[17] Dinstein, Y. (1994). Some Reflections on Extradition. In Delbrück J. & Wolfrum R. (Eds.), German Yearbook of International Law – Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht.: Vol. 36 (1993). (pp. 46-59). BERLIN: Duncker & Humblot GmbH. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[18] Cortland, A. (2008). United States v. Burns: Canada’s Extraterritorial Extension of Canadian Law and Creation of a Canadian “Safe Haven” in Capital Extradition Cases. The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 40(1), 139-167. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[19] Ellsberg, D. (2019). ASSANGE’S ESPIONAGE CHARGES: Daniel Ellsberg, May 23, 2019. In ALI T. & KUNSTLER M. (Eds.), In Defense of Julian Assange (pp. 68-72). New York; London: OR Books.

[20] Warbrick, C. (1989). Extradition. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 38(2), 424-430. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[21] Addendum: Extradition. (1989). The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 38(4), 977-977. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[22] Neibergs, P. (1987). The Limits of Extradition. Harvard International Review, 9(6), 46-48. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[23] Brown, D. (1975). Prerogative Powers and Extradition. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 24(1), 127-130. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[24] Spencer, J. (2013). EXTRADITION, THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND HUMAN RIGHTS. The Cambridge Law Journal, 72(2), 250-253. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[25] Du-Bois Pedain, A. (2010). THE RIGHT TO FAMILY LIFE IN EXTRADITION CASES: MORE DEFENDANT-FRIENDLY THAN STRASBOURG REQUIRES. The Cambridge Law Journal, 69(2), 223-225. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[26] Scott Poynting. (2016). Entitled to be a Radical? Counter-Terrorism and Travesty of Human Rights in the Case of Babar Ahmad. State Crime Journal, 5(2), 204-219.

[27] Nielsen, C. (2013). PROSECUTION OR BUST: THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE UNDER THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE. The Cambridge Law Journal, 72(2), 240-243. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[28] FUJII, R. (2002). Trial and Tribulation: Extraditing Accused Terrorists. Harvard International Review, 24(2), 6-7. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

[29] MARGOLIES, D. (2011). Uncertainties of Citizenship and Sovereignty. In Spaces of Law in American Foreign Relations: Extradition and Extraterritoriality in the Borderlands and Beyond, 1877-1898 (pp. 231-272). University of Georgia Press. Retrieved June 29, 2021.

Author: KORATLA VENKAT SAI NIKHIL, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Editor: Kanishka VaishSenior Editor, LexLife India.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s