LexVERHOEVEN, MARIE-EMMANUELLE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 3 S.C.R. 48 VERHOEVEN, MARIE-EMMANUELLE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 178of2015) APRIL 28, 2016 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Extradition Act, I 962: Applicability of the Act to a foreign State - Scope of judicial review - Held: Whether the Extradition Act is to be made applicable to a foreign State or not is entirely a political decision to be taken by the Government of India and there must be judicial abstinence in this regard - There is no doubt that this is an area that cannot be the subject matter of judicial review - Extradition Act, I 870. s.2(d) - Binding extradition beti1•een India and Chile - Extra- dition Treaty entered into on 26'" January I 897 between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with the Republic of Chile is still in force and binding on India and Chile - The provisions of the Act (other than Chapter JJI thereof) are applicable to the Republic of Chile in respect of the offences specified in the Extradition Treaty. s.2(e) - Request made by Embassy of a foreign State - Held: It is as good as a request made by foreign State itself. s.34-B -Applicability of- Petitioner, a french national accused of conspiracy in the assassination of Chilean Senator - Requisition made by Embassy of Chile through the Note Verbale of 22'"1 September, 20I 5 for the arrest of the petitioner - That Note Verbale was acted upon by the Government of India and an application was moved before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi who granted the prayer for the provisional arrest of the petitioner - Legality - Held: There was no illegality or irregularity in the procedure adopted for the provisional arrest of the petitioner - On the basis of a request made by Chile as contained in the Note Verba le of 22'"1 September, 20 I 5, the petitioner could have been validly detained and placed under provisional arrest u/s.34-B of the Act, on a reciprocal basis, Extradition Treaty or no 48 VERHOEVEN, MARIE-EMMANUELLE v. UNION OF INDIA 49 .Extradition Treaty beh1'een India and Chile - The fi1rther requirement A (in terms of s.34-B of the Act) would however be for Chile to make a formal request for extraditing the petitioner from India on the basis of credible evidence against her of having committed an extradition. offence punishable both in Chile as well as in India. Extradition law: 8 General principles of International lm1', do not bar requisition invoking principle of reciprocity. Historical background of Extradition law in India, discussed. Red notice - Meaning of. discussed. Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of reciprocity - For invoking principle of reciprocity, there need not even be extradition treaty between India and the foreign State. Words and phrases: British possession. Governor - Meaning c in terms of Extradition Act, 1870. D Dismissing the Writ petition and appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There is more than sufficient material to conclude that from 1897-1898 onwards, the Government of British India and the Government of India considered itself bound by the Extradition Treaty entered into with the Republic of Chile on 26'h January, 1897 and the Government of India has always been ofthe view that the Extradition Treaty is in force in India. [Para 95] (84-E-F) 2.1. A Red Notice is issued to seek the provisional arrest of a wanted person. It is not a warrant of arrest. It is a request made by the NCB to Interpol Headquarters for the provisional arrest of a person wanted for extradition and against whom a national or international court has issued a warrant of arrest. It is another matter that a Red Notice issued by Interpol acts as a tie facto international arrest warrant. However, this is subject to the condition that a request for extradition, along with necessary evidence, would be produced by the requesting State without delay. But the absence of a Red Notice does not preclude the Government of India from arresting a fugitive criminal and producing him or her before a Magistrate in accordance with law. E F G H 50 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R. .Thereafter, the provisions of Section 34-B of the Act can be brought into play, provided there is an urgent request from a foreign State for the provisional arrest of a fugitive criminal. This is precisely what transpired in the present case when the Embassy of Ch
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.