E-Paper
VVIP chopper case: HC junks Christian Michel’s PIL against India–UAE extradition treaty
Section 17 of the treaty, signed in 1999, allows India to prosecute people for offences for which extradition is sought and for connected offences as well
The Delhi high court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by Augusta Westland VVIP chopper middleman, Christian James Michel, challenging the India-UAE extradition treaty, which permits the prosecution of an extradited individual not only for the offences for which extradition is granted but also for connected offences.
Section 17 of the treaty, signed in 1999, allows India to prosecute people for offences for which extradition is sought and for connected offences as well.
A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain observed that the treaty was not a law enacted by Parliament, and therefore, the court had no authority to declare it ultra vires.
“Look into the fact that it is not passed by the Parliament. Once it is not yet passed by the Parliament, it is not even a law and it is not to be followed… it’s not a law under the Constitution. Unless it’s not a law, it cannot be declared as ultra vires,” the bench remarked.
Also Read: VVIP chopper case: ED calls Michel’s plea for release misleading
This was after Michael’s lawyer Aljio K Joseph asserted that though the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2017, had chargesheeted him under sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which carried a maximum sentence of five years prior to its amendment in 2018, it later also invoked section 467 of the IPC which carries a life imprisonment through supplementary chargesheets.
He further submitted that his client has already undergone five years of sentence in addition to the pre-extradition incarceration of five years, and the invocation of section 467 has resulted in continued detention.
Such a detention, Aljio said, was illegal and also contrary to section 21 of the Extradition Act, which bars the conviction of an extradited individual for any other offence other than which he was extradited.
Considering the contention, the court, however, said that Michel, besides challenging the treaty, had not challenged any order or proceedings of the court, and thus suggested that he withdraw the petition and file afresh.
“You’re not even getting any order or proceedings challenged. Why should we entertain the petition? We’ll not grant any declaration. Why should we? Declaration can only be given if there is a consequential relief. There has to be a cause of action. Withdraw this and file a better decision,” the bench remarked.
Michel’s counsel then withdrew the petition.
Michel was extradited from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in December 2018. He was though granted bail by the Supreme Court in the CBI case on February 19 and in the ED case by the Delhi high court on March 4, but still remains in prison.
The trial court in August had refused to release Michel from prison, noting that he has been accused of serious offences carrying a punishment up to life imprisonment.
The court said, “Considering the allegations under Section 467 IPC which entails life imprisonment, it cannot be said that the accused has already undergone the period of maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences”.
Michel is accused of being a middleman in the AgustaWestland deal and faces charges under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
