Posted on: June 3, 2021 Posted by: admin Comments: 0

Author: Avani Jajot, Student at Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad


Each State normally exercises absolute sovereignty over all persons within its territory. But when a person runs away to another country after committing crime, there can often be instances. The country affected considers itself powerless in such a situation to exercise authority to prosecute the convicted person. Undoubtedly, this situation is very harmful to peace and order. Fugitives threaten the criminal justice systems around the world. Fugitives today are techno-savvy and highly mobile.

They may have been convicted but not arrested for breaking the law; they may have been released on bail and then fled to avoid punishment or may have escaped from jail. If fugitives are not adjudicated while fleeing to avoid their charges, convicted criminals fail to fulfil their duty, and crime victims are denied justice. A tacit warning to others is if fugitives are not prosecuted by means of an appropriate legal methodology to find them and tried or restored to jail.

The failure of a State to exercise its authority over fugitives within the territory of another State will seriously weaken the maintenance of law and order unless there is a mechanism of cooperation between the State and the State to resolve it. The understanding among nations of the social need to establish inter-jurisdictional cooperation is expressed in the current widespread practice of returning to the State an individual who is suspected or who has been convicted of a crime.[1]

Extradition is a dynamic, global mechanism involving municipal law, inter-country agreements, international law, courts, individual government requirements, individual interests, etc. Extradition is usually seen as a gesture of goodwill from the government that retains the perpetrator towards the nation to which the fleeing criminal is given. Many nations are not obliged to give up the legal structure of another country to a convicted criminal. Since there is no prevalent international law governing extradition, countries have begun set up individualized extradition treaties and arrangements with other countries. There are several factors that come into play regarding the decision to extradite.

The law relating to extradition has evolved over a period of time in accordance with times alter. Taking into account the changing foreign views of the extradition culture and the presence of various legal systems regulating the United Nations has taken action to design a model for extradition decisions in individual countries. Extradition Treaty, 1994 and Extradition Model Law in 2004 with the intention of getting harmonization of the regime for extradition.

As defined by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, ‘Extradition is the delivery on the part of one State to another of those whom it is desired to deal with for crimes of which they have been accused or convicted and are justifiable in the Courts of the other State’. An Extradition request for an accused can be initiated in the case of under-investigation, under-trial and convicted criminals. In cases under investigation, abundant precautions have to be exercised by the law enforcement agency to ensure that it is in possession of prima facie evidence to sustain the allegation before the Courts of Law in the Foreign State.

The Extradition Act 1962 provides India’s legislative basis for extradition. To consolidate and amend the law relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals and to provide for matters connected therewith, or incidental thereto, the Extradition Act of 1962 was enacted. It consolidated the law relating to the extradition of criminal fugitive from India to foreign states. The Indian Extradition Act, 1962 was substantially modified in 1993 by Act 66 of 1993[2].

This paper aims to study the scope and status of Indian legislative framework of extradition, the judicial approach to extradition issues in practice with relevant case laws.


The method of research used in this project is doctrinal research from both primary and secondary sources. Majority of research work has been done via Articles, Case laws, Text Books and material available in online databases.

  1. What is the importance, basic principles and other legal parameters of the concept of extradition?
  2. Is the extradition law in India able to achieve its desired objectives?
  3. Does the extradition law in India do justice to the crime victims?
  4. Does the extradition law in India requires reforms?
  5. Can the extradition law in India claim to be successful when it comes to extraditing the offenders?
  1. The Extradition Act 1962 provides India’s legislative basis for extradition.
  2. Section 2(d) of Extradition Act 1962 defines an ‘Extradition Treaty’, India’s treaty partners have obligations to consider India’s requests.
  3. However, in recent times we have observed that in spite of the existence of Extradition Treaties, there is a prolonged delay in the execution of the extradition request made by India.
  4. The Extradition Act 1962 requires reforms for the faster delivery of justice to the crime victims.
  5. The Extradition Treaties requires amendments for the faster execution of extradition requests.

In Oppenheim’s International Law, the expression extradition has been defined as follows: “Extradition is the delivery of an accused or a convicted individual to the State where he/she is accused of or has been convicted of a crime, by the State on whose territory he/she happens for the time to be.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary[3] , extradition means: “The surrender by one State or Country to another of an individual accused or convicted of an offence outside its own territory and within the territorial jurisdiction of the other, which, being competent to try and punish him, demands the surrender.” Thus, in nutshell, extradition may be defined as: the act of sending, by authority of law, a person accused of a crime to a foreign jurisdiction where the crime was committed, in order that he may be tried there.

J.G. Starke in his work of acclaim, Introduction to International Law (10th Edition) defined the term ‘extradition’ as follows: “The term ‘extradition’ denotes the process whereby under a concluded treaty one State surrenders to any other State at its request, a person accused or convicted of a criminal offence committed against the laws of the requesting State, such requesting State being competent to try the alleged offender. Though extradition is granted in implementation of the international commitments of the State, the procedure to be followed by the courts in deciding, whether extradition should be granted and on what terms, is determined by the municipal law of the land.” Thus, extradition is founded on the broad principle albeit that, it is in the interest of civilised communities that criminals should not go unpunished and on that account it is recognised as a part of the comity of nations that one State should ordinarily afford to another State assistance towards bringing offenders to justice.6 The Supreme Court of India, in the case of, State of West Bengal v. Jugal Kishore[4], defined extradition as the surrender by one State to another of a person desired to be dealt with for crimes of which he has been accused or convicted and which are justiciable in the courts of the other State.

Law identifying with removal in India is administered by: The Extradition Act, 1962[5] what’s more, the Extradition Treaties getting among India and different nations. By prudence of Section 34 of the 1962 Act, the Extradition Act of 1962 has extra-regional ward, that is, a removal offense submitted by any individual in a Foreign State will be considered to have been submitted in India and such individual will be obligated to be arraigned in India for such offense. According to Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with the Constitution of India, 1950 (Schedule VII, List I, Item 18), removal might be characterized as, the activity of surrendering an outlaw criminal to the specialists of the State in which the wrongdoing was perpetrated. Removal settlement implies, a deal, understanding or game plan with a Foreign State identifying with the removal of outlaw criminals.[6] Treaty State implies, a Foreign State with which a removal deal is in operation.[7] Section 3(4) of the 1962 Act completely expresses that, where there is no removal arrangement made by India with any Foreign State, the Central Government may, by told order[8], treat any Convention to which India and a Foreign State are parties, as a removal settlement made by India with that Foreign State accommodating removal in regard of the offenses determined in that Convention. According to Section 2(f) of the Removal Act, 1962, just ‘fugitive hoodlums’, might be removed. Fugitive Criminal, according to the removal law winning in India implies: an individual who is blamed (or is sentenced) of a removal offense submitted inside the locale of a Foreign State, and an individual who while in India, plans, endeavours to submit, impels or takes an interest as an accessory in the commission of a removal offense in a Foreign State. According to Section 2(c) of the Removal Act, 1962, a removal offense implies, an offense gave in the removal arrangement with Foreign States; an offense culpable with detainment for a term which will not be short of what one-year under the laws winning in India or of a Foreign State. Section 2(a) of the 1962 Act characterizes a composite offense as, a demonstration or lead of an individual happening entirely or to some extent in a Foreign State or in India, impact of which (or planned impact which) taken overall would comprise a removal offense in India or in a Foreign State, by and large.

In the case of Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India[9], Supreme Court of India, expounding over the significance of removal law, expressed the accompanying, in legitimate terms: “Extradition is an extraordinary advance towards global participation in the concealment of wrongdoing. It is consequently that the Congress of Comparative Law at Hague in 1932, settled that States should regard removal as a commitment coming about because of the global fortitude in the battle against crime.”


General –

  • Removal is represented by global arrangements, reciprocal or multilateral, cherishing the guideline, nulla extradition sine lege (no extradition without a law), this principle is in fact a version of nullum crimine nulla pena sine lege (no crime and no penalty without a law).
  • The State looking for the acquiescence of an individual should introduce a conventional removal demand, which should distinguish the needed individual and the offense attributed on him/her. The mentioning State is needed to present certain reports on the side of the solicitation. The kind and configuration of the proof required, so additionally the norm of verification applied by the mentioned State may contrast fundamentally starting with one nation then onto the next. The formal removal solicitation might be gone before by a temporary capture warrant.
  • Principle of comity of countries charms that, every Member State should agree to a demand from a court or investigator of another Member State for the execution of a capture warrant gave by it against an individual blamed for an offense conveying a least sentence of a year of detainment.
  • The capture warrant needs to contain just a depiction of the conditions though which the offense was submitted.
  • The legal specialists and not the leader, is to settle on the solicitation of removal.
  • Certain demonstrations, that is, military, political or financial offenses, have been considered customarily outside the domain of extraditable offenses. Ongoing advancements have added to this rundown the “political offense exception”.

India –

  • An order for the acquiescence of an outlaw criminal is to be made to the Central Government by: (a) A strategic portrayal by the Foreign State, at Delhi; or, (b) The Government of the concerned Foreign State may speak with the Central Government through its conciliatory portrayal in that State; or, (c) By other modes settled by courses of action following among India and different nations.
  • Upon demand, the Central Government may, on the off chance that it figures fit, can arrange for a request by a Magistrate. ‘Magistrate’ with the end goal of Section 5 of the 1962 Act, will mean: (a) A Magistrate of First Class or Presidency Magistrate (Section 2(g) of the 1962 Act); and (b) The Magistrate, who might have locale to enquire into the offense on the off chance that it had been an offense submitted inside the neighbourhood furthest reaches of his locale.[10]
  • On receipt of a request under Section 5 of the 1962 Act, the Magistrate will give a warrant for capture of the outlaw criminal.[11]
  • On appearance of the outlaw criminal before the Magistrate-the Magistrate will: (a) Enquire into the case; (b) Take proof on the side of the order; (c) Take proof in the interest of the outlaw criminal including-proof that no removal offense is submitted.
  • Evidence before the Magistrate: In any procedure against a Fugitive Criminal, displays, demeanour (regardless of whether got or taken within the sight of the individual against whom they are utilized or not), official declarations of realities and legal records (if properly verified), might be gotten in proof before the Magistrate.[12]
  • What might be named as properly ‘authenticated documents’? Warrants; the testimonies or proclamations on pledge and duplicates thereof; declarations of, or legal archives expressing the truth of, a conviction-marked or affirmed under the hand of an appointed authority, judge or official of the State or by the official seal of a Minister of the State.
  • If an at first sight case is made out on the side of the order the Magistrate may carry out the outlaw criminal to jail; will report the consequence of request to Central Government; will advance the composed accommodation, assuming any, recorded by the criminal to the Central Government for thought.
  • If a by all appearances case isn’t made out on the side of the demand, at that point, Magistrate will release the outlaw lawbreaker.
  • Surrender of outlaw criminal to the Foreign State: Upon fulfilment qua the prima facie report of the Magistrate, the outlaw criminal might be given up to the Foreign State.
  • Restrictions on acquiescence of outlaw crook: A criminal will not be given up or returned if, the offense is political in nature[13]; the arraignment of offense is banned by time in the Foreign State; if the individual is blamed for any offense in India, other than the offense for which removal is looked for, or is going through sentence under any conviction in India until after he has been released, regardless of whether by vindication or on termination of his sentence or something else; and until the lapse of 15 days from the date of his being focused on jail by the Magistrate.[14]
  • Prosecution on refusal to removal: Where the Central Government is of the assessment that an outlaw criminal can’t be given up or returned, as per demand for removal by the Foreign State, the Central Government, on the off chance that it considers fit and appropriate, it can find a way to indict such outlaw criminal in India.[15]
  • Provisional Arrest under Section 34B of the 1962 Act: Upon critical solicitation from the Foreign State, the Central Government may demand the Magistrate (having able locale) to give a prompt temporary warrant for the capture of the criminal. It is important to make reference to that, the outlaw criminal is to be delivered upon the lapse of 60 days if no solicitation qua his acquiescence or return is gotten, inside the time of 60 days.
  • Discipline of life detainment though an offense, discipline for which, conventionally in India, is capital punishment: Section 34C of the 1962 Act gives that, where a criminal has carried out a removal offense culpable with capital punishment in India, is given up or is returned by the Foreign State on solicitation of the Central Government (India); and the laws of the Foreign State don’t accommodate demise punishment qua the offense for which the outlaw criminal is sentenced, at that point the outlaw criminal will be obligated for the discipline of life detainment qua the offense.
  • Appellate Remedies: (a) There is no arrangement of legal allure opposite removal procedures in the 1962 Act; (b) For review of any complaint against any request vis-a-vis removal procedures, the writ locale of the High-Court concerned needs to be summoned.

Significant Case-Laws:

  1. Dr. Babu Ram Saksena v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 155: In the year 1869, the British Government and the State of Tonk went into an arrangement which accommodated the removal of guilty parties in regard of specific offenses determined in that called “heinous offenses”, which did exclude fundamentally offenses though cheating and blackmail. In the year 1903, the Indian Extradition Act happened; the 1903 Act given to removal in regard of cases but cheating and blackmail, in any case, Section 18[16] of 1903 Act, given that nothing contained in the 1903 Act will discredit from the arrangements of any settlement for removal of guilty parties. Under the Independence of India Act, 1947, the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States passed, and with it all settlements and plans in power; yet under a halt arrangement, between the Indian Dominion and the States (counting the State of Tonk) all arrangements between His Majesty and the States were kept, including arrangements opportune removal. Province of Tonk consented to the Dominion of India in 1947 and turned into a Member State of the United State of Rajasthan. The litigant in this case was an individual from UPCS (Uttar Pradesh Civil Service) and his administrations were loaned to the State of Tonk in 1948. After the litigant returned to Uttar Pradesh, he was accused of offenses of cheating and coercion, asserted to have been submitted by him while he was in the State of Tonk and was captured under a removal warrant gave under Section 7[17] of the 1903 Act. The appealing party applied under Sections 491 (Power to give headings of the idea of a habeas corpus) and 561-A (Saving of inalienable intensity of High Court Division) of the Code of Criminal Technique, 1898, for his delivery, battling that, considering the arrangements of Section 18 of the 1903 Act and the Extradition Treaty, 1869, litigant’s capture was illicit.

According to, H.J. Kania, Patanjali Sastri and Fazl Ali, JJ.: It was held that, in any event, expecting that the Extradition Treaty, 1869 remained alive after the consolidation of the State of Tonk in the United State of Rajasthan; by accommodating removal for extra offenses, the 1903 Act didn’t criticize from the 1869 Treaty or the privileges of Indian residents there under, and the capture and give up of the litigant under Section 7 of the 1903 Act was not unlawful qua the 1869 Treaty.

According to, B.K. Mukherjea, Fazl Ali, M.C. Mahajan and S.K. Das, JJ.: It was held that, the Extradition Treaty, 1869 was not fit for being offered impact to taking into account the consolidation of the State of Tonk in the United State of Rajasthan, and, as no enforceable arrangement right existed, Section 18 of the 1903 Act had no application; thus far as the states of Section 7 of the 1903 Act had been followed, the warrant of capture given under Section 7 of the 1903 Act was not illicit.

  1. The State of Madras v. C.G. Menon, AIR 1954 SC 517: For this situation it was held that, the plan of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, orders outlaw wrongdoers in various classifications and afterward endorses a method for managing each class. A examination between the arrangements of Part I (Return of Fugitives) and Part II (Inter Colonial Backing of Warrants, and Offenses) of the 1881 Act clarifies that with respect to offenses identifying with which Part I has application, an outlaw when secured couldn’t be focused on jail and gave up except if the judge was fulfilled that on the proof delivered before him there was a solid likely argument against him, while concerning a criminal administered by Part II of the Act it was not important to show up at such a finding prior to giving up him. There was along these lines a generous and material distinction in methodology of giving up criminal wrongdoers recommended by the two pieces of the 1881 Act.

Concerning submitting offenses in the United Kingdom and British Territories and far-off nations in which the Crown practiced unfamiliar purview, the strategy recommended by Part I of the Act was to be followed prior to giving up them and except if an at first sight body of evidence was set up against them, they couldn’t be removed. Removal with unfamiliar States is, besides in uncommon cases, administered by settlements or plan made between se. Removal of guilty parties between the United Realm and the Native States in India is represented by the Indian Extradition Act. Under the arrangements of the Act no individual caught could be given up except if a by all appearance’s argument was made out against him. After the accomplishment of freedom also, coming into power of the Constitution of India, 1950, India turned into a Sovereign Democratic-Republic, and is not any more a British Possession inside the significance of Section 12 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. India turned into an unfamiliar nation, post freedom, most definitely and the removal of people taking haven in India, having submitted offenses in British Possessions could now just be managed by a plan resulting between the Republic of India and the British Government, and offered impact to by a suitable enactment. The Indian Extradition Act, 1903 was adjusted under the arrangements of Article 372 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The 1903 Act didn’t keep alive any of the arrangements of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, which was an Act of British Parliament and which was not received post freedom, and consequently, Section 12 furthermore, Section 14 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 doesn’t makes a difference to India.

  1. Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Ors., AIR 1955 SC 367: It was held that in India the Foreigners Act, 1946 presents the capacity to remove outsiders from India. It vests the Central Government with supreme furthermore, liberated tact and, as there is no arrangement shackling this prudence in the Constitution of India, 1950, an unhindered option to remove remains. The law of removal is very extraordinary, on account of settlement commitments it gives a privilege on certain nations (not all) to ask that people who are affirmed to have submitted certain determined offenses in their regions, or who are asserted to have submitted certain indicated offenses in their domains, or who have just been indicted for those offenses by their courts, be given over to them in care for arraignment or discipline. In any case, regardless of that the Government of India will undoubtedly agree to the solicitation and has a flat out and free circumspection to won’t. It was additionally held that, there are significant contrasts between the two Acts. Initially, the Extradition Act applies to everyone, resident and outsider the same, and to each class of outsider, in other words, even to outsiders who are not nationals of the nation requesting removal. In any case, as a result of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950, no resident can be removed (rather than removal) without an explicit law with that impact; and there is none; additionally, the sort of law contacting removal (rather than removal) that could be presented in the defence of a resident would need to be limited in degree. That isn’t where an outsider is concerned in light of the fact that Article 19 doesn’t have any significant bearing. Yet, a resident who has submitted particular sorts of offenses abroad can be removed if the conventions endorsed by the Extradition Act are noticed. An outsider has no such right and he can be ousted with no custom past the creation of a request by the Central Government. However, on the off chance that he is removed rather than being ousted, at that point the customs of the Extradition Act should be followed. The significance of the qualification will be acknowledged from what follows; furthermore, that applies to resident and outsider the same. It was seen that; the Extradition Act is actually a unique part of the law of criminal methodology. It manages lawbreakers and those blamed for specific violations. The Outsiders Act isn’t straightforwardly worried about hoodlums or wrongdoing however the way that an outsider has submitted offenses, or is associated with that, might be a decent ground for with respect to as unfortunate. In this way, under the Extradition Act warrants or a call should be given; there should be an authoritative enquiry and when there is a capture it is punitive in character; and – this is most significant qualification of all-when the individual to be removed leaves India he doesn’t leave the nation as a liberated person; he stays nabbed all through and is simply given over by one bunch of police to the next.
  2. Mohammed Zubair Fauzal Awam v. State (Represented by the Inspector of Police and Another), 2011 Cri LJ 2975: For this situation, the Petitioner, a Sri-Lankan Tamilian incidentally dwelling in India, asserted that he had been remaining in India with due consent from the specialists concerned. On strength of a high alert-notice gave by Interpol (New Delhi), in compatibility of a capture warrant that was given by a capable court at Sri-Lanka, a case was enlisted under Section 41(1) (g)[18] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the applicant. The Court, for this situation, seen that, the result of a red-corner-notice is that the mentioning State may make a removal demand or may make a subsequent move concerning the capture of the candidate, yet since formal solicitation was still to be made by the Sri-Lankan Government for removal of the solicitor, capture of the applicant and enrolment of FIR (First Information Report) under Section 41(1) (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 qua him, was not legitimate.
  3. P. Pushpavathy v. Ministry of External Affairs, 2013 Cri LJ 4420: For this situation it was held that, if an outlaw criminal blamed for a removal offense is captured in accordance with a lawfully given warrant of capture by Magistrate who was coordinated by the Legislature of India to hold essential request; at that point in such a case the confinement following can’t be named as illicit or un-legitimate. At the point when confinement isn’t illicit or unlawful at that point no case can be made out for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Notwithstanding restricting settlement systems, the way toward removing outlaws is protracted, complex and vigorously relies upon homegrown law and legislative issues of the mentioned state. This isn’t unexpected as removal may be, all things considered, a sovereign choice. In any case, there are factors engaged with removal over which India can practice control. India could embrace a focused-on way to deal with resolve these issues, and consequently improve its prosperity rate.

Utilizing discretion and respective arrangements to convince nations to handle demands speedily, is a significant advance. Moreover, India should, based on correspondence and comity measure removal demands got from unfamiliar states quickly and effectively. Moreover, the Indian government should follow through on its approach “to close removal deals with the same number of nations” as could be expected under the circumstances, and put forth attempts to go into more reciprocal removal relations.[19] Other systems that can encourage capture and removal of guilty parties, viz. shared lawful help settlements, giving letters rogatory[20] and data trade MoUs can be used where important. Preventive law and strategy quantify that can hinder the break of wrongdoers, may likewise be investigated. The as of late passed Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018 – however not without its own difficulties – connotes the public authority’s endeavours to move its concentration to preventive, ex risk lawful mechanisms.[21] These means will permit India to act rapidly and diminish the quantity of places of refuge accessible for outlaws abroad.

India additionally needs to find a way to scatter concerns with respect to helpless jail conditions and potential common freedoms infringement of the mentioned individual. Confirmations by the Indian government with respect to the equivalent are regularly not acknowledged by unfamiliar courts. As a momentary measure, India could propose to confine gave up wrongdoers to jails with better offices. Criminals who are not blamed for rough violations, for example, monetary wrongdoers can be housed in very much kept up, least security offices. Nonetheless, over the long haul, it is reasonable to make an organized move to present methodical jail changes and convert Indian detainment facilities into a protected region for restoration. Moreover, India could think about marking global instruments, for example, the UN Convention Against Torture (1984) to set up India’s zero resilience towards torment and custodial savagery. Simultaneously, the expanding use of common liberties worries to removal demands requires the definition of decides that accomplish a reasonable harmony between wrongdoing concealment and the outlaw’s protection.[22]

For tending to investigational delays, it is basic to improve the limit and hierarchical efficiencies of law implementation organizations with the goal that they may lead expedient examination in these cases. As of now, numerous removal cases, for example, those identified with illegal tax avoidance, psychological warfare and monetary offenses, are either taken up by the CBI or shipped off the CBI, by the state police, for examination. The CBI was made to manage defilement cases, and is understaffed to take up bigger cases including removal. The Justice Malimath Committee report (2003) suggests setting up a Central Agency, on comparable lines with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (USA), to practice locale over violations and offenses influencing public security.[23] The US’ FBI, which utilizes about 35,000 individuals,[24] has wide purview to research coordinated wrongdoing, middle class wrongdoing and illegal intimidation, among others. The CBI, then again, set up with roughly 6,000 officers[25] might be not able to exhaust the necessary labour to finish examinations on schedule.

To guarantee that India’s removal demands are in consistence with arrangement conditions and narrative necessities, India should set up appropriate hierarchical systems to acclimate itself with laws and guidelines of settlement states. India could embrace the great acts of the US’ Office of International Affairs (OIA), Washington’s essential body to deal with removal demands, and utilize legal advisors and station prepared contact officials in nations with which the nation has removal relations.[26] Publishing formats for outlining removal demands and receiving norms for the upkeep of removal documents, will improve the cooperative energy between the MEA and law requirement organizations. Setting up a different cell to give master lawful exhortation and help on drafting, confirmation and interpretation of proof, will help moderate the chance of dismissal of solicitations.

With the advantages of globalization and coordination comes the squeezing challenge of guilty parties escaping India. Given the hindrances India faces in making sure about the arrival of these criminals, the nation should quickly acquaint changes and influence discretion with make a less difficult, frictionless removal component.


[1] Edward Collins, International Law in a Changing World (1969), p. 216


[3] See: Black ‘s Law Dictionary, Centennial Edition (1891-1991), Sixth Edition, p. 585

[4] AIR 1969 SC 1171

[5] The Preamble of the 1962 Act describes it as follows: “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

[6] As per Section 2(c) (i) of the 1962 Act, an extradition treaty is a treaty between two or more nations which provides for the extradition from each of the countries to any of the others, of persons charged with specified offences.

[7] See: Section 2(j) of the 1962 Act

[8] As per Section 2(h) of the 1962 Act, ―notified order‖ means an order notified in the Official Gazette.

[9] 2001 (4) SCC 516

[10] Section 5 of the 1962 Act- Order for Magisterial Inquiry: Where such requisition is made, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, issue an order to any Magistrate who would have had jurisdiction to inquire into the offence if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction, directing him to inquire into the case.

[11] See: Section 6 of the 1962 Act

[12] See: Section 10 (1) of the 1962 Act

[13] Following offences are regarded as offences of political character albeit Section 31(2) of the 1962 Act: (a) Offences under the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982; (b) Offences under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982; (c) An offence within the scope of the Convention on the punishment of crimes against Internationally protected persons including diplomatic agents, opened for signature at New York on 14.12.1973; (d) An offence within the scope of the International Convention against the taking of hostages opened for signature at New York on 18.12.1979; (e) Culpable Homicide and Murder (Sections 299 to 304, Indian Penal Code of 1860); (f) Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon or means (Sections 321 to 333, the Indian Penal Code of 1860); (g) Offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; (h) Possession of a fire-arm or ammunition with intention to endanger life (Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959); (i) Use of fire-arm with intention to resist or prevent the arrest or detention (Section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959); (j) Causing of loss or damage to property used for public utilities or otherwise with intention to endanger life (Section 425 read with Section 440 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860); (k) Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement (Sections 339 to 348 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860); (l) Kidnapping and abduction including taking of hostages (Sections 360 to 364A, the Indian Penal Code of 1860); (m) Offences related to terrorism and terrorist acts (The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987); (n) Abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit, inciting, participating as an accomplice in the commission of any of the offences listed above.

[14] See: Section 31 of the 1962 Act

[15] See: Section 34A of the 1962 Act

[16] Chapter 3 of the 1903 Act- Surrender of Fugitive Criminals in case of States other than Foreign States; Section 18 of the 1903 Act: Chapter not to derogate from treaties- Nothing in this Chapter shall derogate from the provisions of any treaty for the extradition of offenders, and the procedure provided by any such treaty shall be followed in any case to which it applies, and the provisions of this Act shall be modified accordingly.

[17] Section 7 of the 1903 Act

[18] Section 41, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: When police may arrest without warrant; Section 41(1) (g): who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India.

[19] “International Co-operation”, The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation, accessed July 15, 2018,

[20] “Global Affairs Canada”, Government of Canada, accessed July 15, 2018,

[21]  “China’s Foreign Judicial Assistance and Extradition Treaty”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, accessed on July 15, 2018.

[22]  “Pakistan: The Legal Framework for Extradition, MLA, and Recovery of Proceeds of Corruption”, Organization for Economic-Cooperation and Development, September 2007.

[23]List of Fugitives Extradited by Foreign Governments to India”, Ministry of External Affairs (Government of India), last updated October 31, 2018.

[24]List of fugitives extradited to foreign countries”, Ministry of External Affairs (Government of India), last updated March 5, 2018.

[25] Rakesh Dubbudu, “62 Fugitives extradited to India since 2002, another 110 yet to be extradited”,, April 20, 2017.

[26] Reply to Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 964, November 24, 2016.

Leave a Comment