Former Supreme Court Judge Testifies in Favor of Nirav Modi's Extradition Appeal Reopening
In a significant development at the London High Court, former Supreme Court judge Justice (retired) Deepak Verma presented evidence on Tuesday supporting wanted jeweller Nirav Modi's application to reopen his extradition appeal. The hearing centered on Modi's claims that he faces substantial risk of torture if returned to India, despite sovereign assurances from the Indian government.
Challenging Sovereign Assurances
Justice Verma, alongside Nirav Modi's former Indian counsel Ashul Agarwal, disputed the Indian government's sovereign assurance that Modi would not face interrogation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED), or any other investigating agency if extradited. Both legal experts argued that these agencies operate independently and are not bound by directions from the central government, making interrogation highly probable.
"India claims its sovereign assurance is binding on all agencies, but Agarwal and Verma deny that," Edward Fitzgerald KC, representing Nirav Modi, informed the court during proceedings.
Legal Basis for Appeal Reopening
Nirav Modi, who lost his initial extradition appeal in November 2022, filed this application based on the February 2025 judgment in the Sanjay Bhandari case. That ruling prevented Bhandari's extradition to India on grounds that he would face torture risk during interrogation by Indian investigating agencies. Modi claims this constitutes compelling new evidence that he faces identical risks.
Verma and Agarwal specifically identified multiple agencies that could potentially interrogate Modi upon his return to India, including the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), income-tax authorities, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), in addition to the CBI and ED.
Historical Context and Ongoing Warrants
The case originates from 2018 when the customs department registered a case in Surat against Nirav Modi, accusing him of defrauding Punjab National Bank of approximately Rs 13,000 crore through customs duty evasion. Graeme Hall, another representative for Modi, emphasized that warrants from the Gujarat court remain active and enforceable.
"Warrants from the Gujarat court remain in force. Nirav has to be arrested under those warrants and produced before this court, and that can't be overridden by assurances," Hall stated. "Verma and Agarwal both state that once in Gujarat, it is highly likely Nirav will be interrogated by the DRI and so there is a real risk of ill treatment."
Questioning Agency Reliability
Edward Fitzgerald KC further challenged the reliability of assurances from Indian investigative agencies, citing their documented history. "Any assurances from the CBI and ED were not reliable because of their history and track record, and they had repeatedly been found to be practitioners of torture by every international body that has looked at this issue," he argued before the court.
Justice Verma reinforced this position by stating that sovereign assurances "cannot override judicial warrants or the discretion of Indian courts."
India's Counterarguments
Representing the Indian government, Helen Malcolm KC firmly rejected these claims, reaffirming that there was no prospect of Nirav Modi being interrogated by any investigative agency in India. She questioned the credibility of the witnesses presented by Modi's defense team.
"Agarwal is a very inexperienced lawyer and Verma pretends to be expert on Indian extradition but there is no evidence he has ever dealt with extradition," Malcolm stated during her arguments.
Judgment Reserved
The High Court has reserved judgment on whether to allow Nirav Modi's application to reopen his extradition appeal. This decision could have significant implications for future extradition cases between India and the United Kingdom, particularly regarding the weight given to sovereign assurances versus concerns about potential human rights violations.
The case continues to highlight the complex legal and diplomatic considerations involved in international extradition proceedings, especially when allegations of potential mistreatment intersect with substantial financial fraud accusations.
