Nikhil Kolbekar vs Union Of India And Anr
2019 Latest Caselaw 3686 Del

$~5
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(CRL) 2140/2019 & Crl.M.A. Nos.32634-36/2019
      NIKHIL KOLBEKAR                                       ..... Petitioner
               Through:            Mr.Arvind Singh and Mr.Sandeep Sharma,
                                   Advocates.

                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR                        ..... Respondents
               Through: Mr.Rajeev Sharma and Mr.Saket Chandra,
                         Advocates for respondents.

%                                       Date of Decision: 07th August, 2019

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

                                JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)

1. The present matter has been placed before the Division Bench as one of the prayers in writ petition is to strike down sub-Section 3 of Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1962 on the ground that it is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Extradition Act applicable to the Indian Citizens where extradition is sought to United States (US) is discriminatory vis-a-vis the law and procedure applicable to US nationals whose extradition is sought to India. He elaborates that while sub-Section 3 of Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1962 calls for 'a prima

facie case' only; in the USA, the Office of International Affairs forwards the request to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the district where the fugitive is located, only if the material is "sufficient and appropriate". Consequently, he submits that while extraditing a US Citizen the material produced has to be adequate and satisfactory apart from being acceptable in quality and quantity; in India the requirement for extradition is merely a prima facie case. This according to him, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. In essence, what the petitioner seeks is the same rights, protection and privileges as are available to an American citizen i.e. parity between Indian and American laws.

4. In our opinion, no Indian citizen can state that the American Constitution must apply to Indian citizens or that the Attorney General's office must decide the request for extradition instead of a Court of law in India. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted then UOI may well argue that the procedure that is followed in a neighbouring dictatorial country should be followed in India while extraditing a person to that dictatorial country!

5. In our view, every country is entitled to frame its own law and procedure as long as they are fair and reasonable. Legislations and procedures which are fair and reasonable cannot be interfered with.

6. We are also of the view that the 'prima facie' test stipulated in sub- Section 3 of Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1962 is legal and fair as, after all, a full-fledged trial will take place in the country to which the petitioner is extradited.

7. Consequently, the prayer B for striking down sub-Section 3 of Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1962, is rejected. However, as learned

counsel for the petitioner wishes to argue on the merits, the matter is directed to be placed before the learned Single Judge as per roster, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 14.08.2019.

MANMOHAN, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J AUGUST 07, 2019 afa/