Delhi High Court Questions Centre on Extradition Treaty Validity
The Delhi High Court has taken a significant step in the ongoing AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter case by issuing formal notices to the Central government. On Monday, a Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain directed the government to respond to a petition filed by Christian Michel, the British national accused in the high-profile corruption case.
Michel's Legal Challenge Against Treaty Supremacy
Through his counsel, Advocate Aljo K. Joseph, Michel has raised a fundamental legal question about the hierarchy between international treaties and domestic law. The petition argues that the extradition treaty between India and UAE cannot override the Indian Extradition Act of 1962. Michel contends that parliamentary legislation must prevail over bilateral agreements in case of any conflict.
The core legal argument presented states that the bilateral treaty is subordinate to statutes enacted by the Indian Parliament. Therefore, Michel claims it cannot be used to justify legal proceedings that extend beyond what the domestic legislation permits. This challenge strikes at the heart of how international agreements are implemented within India's legal framework.
Violation of Extradition Principles Alleged
The petition highlights specific concerns about the Doctrine of Speciality under Section 21 of the Extradition Act. This crucial legal safeguard ensures that an extradited individual can only be tried for offences specified in the original extradition request. Michel's legal team asserts that introducing new charges, including those under Section 467 of the IPC, violates this fundamental principle.
Michel maintains that these additional charges directly conflict with the extradition decree issued by UAE authorities. The petition references binding Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark cases of Gramophone Company of India Ltd. vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Daya Singh Lahoria vs. Union of India, to support the argument that parliamentary law must prevail.
Claims of Unlawful Detention and Judicial Hostage
In a serious allegation, Michel claims he is being held as a judicial hostage despite having already served the maximum imprisonment term for the offences listed in the initial charge sheet and extradition decree. The petition argues that his continued custody violates Articles 21, 245 and 253 of the Indian Constitution.
Furthermore, Michel's legal team contends that the investigating agencies have failed to establish material evidence for the additional charges of cheating, money laundering, and financial impropriety. The petition asserts that these supplementary charges lack proper authorization under the extradition decree and therefore cannot be sustained under Indian jurisdiction.
The Bench has sought formal responses from multiple central agencies and ministries, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and Enforcement Directorate (ED). The court has scheduled the next hearing for January 9, marking another crucial date in this long-running legal battle that continues to test the boundaries of India's extradition framework.
