The plea by AgustaWestland accused Christian Michel James challenges Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty, with arguments that it conflicts with Section 21 of the Extradition Act.
Supreme Court Seeks Response In Four Weeks
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a special leave petition filed by Christian Michel James.
Michel is an accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case.
He has challenged Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the matter.
The Court made the notice returnable in four weeks.
The case is titled Christian Michel James v. Union of India, SLP(Crl) No. 7103/2026.
Michel Challenges Article 17 Of India-UAE Treaty
Michel has challenged Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty.
The provision allows prosecution for offences connected with the offences for which extradition was granted.
During the hearing, Michel’s counsel argued that the Delhi High Court had given the treaty primacy over Parliamentary law.
According to the petitioner, Article 17 conflicts with Section 21 of the Extradition Act.
Section 21 restricts prosecution to the offences for which the extraditing country granted extradition.
Delhi High Court Had Upheld Treaty Provision
The present SLP arises from a Delhi High Court order.
The High Court had dismissed Michel’s plea against Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty executed in 1999.
It upheld the validity of the treaty provision.
It also rejected Michel’s plea seeking release from prison.
Michel had argued before the High Court that the UAE extradited him only for limited offences.
He referred to offences under Sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Therefore, he contended that India could not try him for any other offence under Section 21 of the Extradition Act.
He also challenged Article 17 as ultra vires Articles 21, 245 and 253 of the Constitution.
In particular, he objected to the phrase “anything connected therewith.”
High Court Found No Conflict With Extradition Act
The Delhi High Court held that Article 17 did not conflict with Section 21 of the Extradition Act.
It said courts must examine the permissible scope of prosecution in light of the Dubai court’s extradition decree.
The High Court also considered the factual foundation placed before the extraditing court.
Further, it found that Michel faced prosecution for offences arising from the same factual background.
Therefore, the High Court held that such prosecution fell within Article 17.
The Court also noted that India and the UAE had agreed to extradition principles as sovereign nations.
Accordingly, it held that the treaty allowed trial for offences connected with the extradited offences.
The High Court said this position conformed to Section 21 of the Extradition Act.
Allegations In AgustaWestland Case
The allegations against Michel relate to the procurement of VVIP helicopters from AgustaWestland.
According to the prosecution, officials reduced the mandatory flying altitude requirement.
They allegedly reduced it from 6000 metres to 4500 metres in March 2005.
The prosecution claims that this change favoured AgustaWestland.
It also alleges that Michel acted as a middleman.
According to the case, he used contacts in the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Air Force.
He also allegedly shared confidential documents.
The CBI has alleged a loss of Euro 398.21 million, approximately Rs 2666 crore, to the exchequer.
The allegation relates to the contract dated February 08, 2010.
The contract concerned the supply of VVIP choppers worth Euro 556.262 million.
CBI And ED Proceedings Against Michel
The CBI registered a case on March 12, 2013.
It alleged offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the IPC.
It also invoked Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The case related to the procurement of VVIP helicopters.
Thereafter, the Enforcement Directorate filed a chargesheet against Michel in June 2016.
The ED alleged that Michel received EUR 30 million, approximately Rs 225 crore, from AgustaWestland.
Authorities extradited Michel from Dubai on December 04, 2018.
The extradition followed a decree dated September 02, 2018.
Release Plea Under Section 436A CrPC Rejected
Michel had also challenged a trial court order rejecting his application under Section 436A CrPC.
He sought release on the ground that he had already undergone the maximum sentence of seven years.
However, the Delhi High Court rejected that plea in the impugned judgment.
The Supreme Court granted Michel bail in the CBI case on February 18, 2025.
Later, the Delhi High Court granted him bail in the ED case on March 04, 2025.
However, Michel has remained in custody because he has not fulfilled the bail conditions.
Advocates Appearing For Petitioner
Advocates Aljo Joseph, Sriram Parakkat and M.S. Vishnu Shankar appeared for the petitioner.
