A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja passed the order.
Christian Michel extradition plea challenged India-UAE treaty
Michel had asked the High Court to declare that Section 21 of the Extradition Act would override the 1999 India-UAE extradition treaty. Section 21 bars India from trying an extradited person for any offence not named in the extradition order. Michel argued that the treaty allowed prosecution not only for listed offences but also for other “connected” offences.
Michel also challenged the trial court’s order on his plea under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He had sought release from jail. Michel, a British citizen, was extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018. He has remained in custody since then.
Investigators accuse Michel of acting as a middleman for helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland. They say he helped the company secure a contract from the then Congress-led Indian government. The contract concerned helicopters meant for VVIP transport.
According to the allegations, Michel entered into as many as twelve contracts with AgustaWestland. The prosecution says he used those contracts to legitimise illicit commissions or kickbacks worth €42.27 million. These payments related to the Government of India’s procurement of VVIP helicopters.
The CBI has also alleged that bribes of about US$33 million moved through bank accounts in the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.
This was Michel’s second petition before the High Court against the India-UAE treaty. On November 17, the High Court refused to entertain his earlier plea. In that petition, he had sought a declaration that Article 17 of the extradition treaty was illegal. The Court then noted that Michel had not sought any consequential relief.
Michel’s main argument targeted Article 17 of the India-UAE treaty. That provision allows trial for offences “connected” to those for which extradition was sought. Michel argued that Indian agencies could not rely on that Article. He said it conflicted with Section 21 of the Extradition Act. That provision bars India from trying an extradited person for offences not named in the extradition decree.
According to Michel’s plea, Indian agencies breached that safeguard by invoking Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code through supplementary chargesheets. That offence carries life imprisonment. Michel argued that the Dubai courts’ extradition order did not include that offence.
Michel also argued that he had already completed the maximum sentence possible for the offences for which he was extradited. On that basis, he claimed that his continued detention in India was illegal.
According to the petition, the original 2017 CBI chargesheet booked him under Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. At that time, those offences carried a maximum sentence of five years.
Michel further argued that his incarceration had crossed that statutory limit. He included the period he spent in custody during the extradition proceedings in the UAE in that calculation.
Advocate Aljo K Joseph appeared for Christian Michel. Central Government Standing Counsel Satya Ranjan Swain appeared for the Central government. Additional Solicitor General DP Singh represented the CBI.
Also read: Yatin Oza contempt case: Supreme Court reserves order
