The Delhi High Court on Monday issued a notice to the central government regarding a petition filed by Christian Michel. Michel, an accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter case, is seeking a declaration that the India-UAE extradition treaty cannot override India’s Extradition Act 1962.
Through his legal representative, Advocate Aljo K. Joseph, Michel argued that the bilateral treaty is subject to a law enacted by the Indian Parliament and therefore cannot be invoked to justify legal proceedings that go beyond what the legislation allows.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain sought formal responses from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The Bench also clarified that the respondents can raise any objection regarding the maintainability of the petition.
The plea emphasizes that the Extradition Act, specifically Section 21, provides a statutory guarantee that an extradited person may not be tried for crimes other than those for which he was originally extradited.
The petition further contends that the introduction of new charges, including offenses under Section 467 of the IPC, violates the doctrine of specialty and is in direct violation of the extradition decree issued by the UAE authorities.
Michel’s lawyer argued that in any conflict with the contract, parliamentary law must prevail, citing binding Supreme Court precedents such as Gramophone Company of India Ltd . vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Daya Singh Lahoria Vs. Union of India.
Michel further alleges that he was unlawfully detained, arguing that he has already served the maximum prison sentence set forth for the offenses charged in the original indictment and extradition decree. He argued that his continued detention amounted to being held as a “judicial hostage” in violation of Articles 21, 245 and 253 of the Constitution.
The petition also claims that CBI and ED record sheets have not shown any substantial evidence of cheating, money laundering or financial impropriety. He argues that these additional charges lack the authorization of the extradition decree and are therefore not recoverable under the Indian jurisdiction.
The bench listed the matter for next hearing on January 9.
