|
The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to the Central government on a plea filed by Christian Michel, accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, seeking a declaration that the India-UAE extradition treaty cannot override the Extradition Act, 1962.
Michel, through Advocate Aljo K Joseph, argued that the treaty is subordinate to a law enacted by the Indian Parliament and therefore cannot be used to justify proceedings beyond what is permitted under the statute. A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain sought responses from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs, the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate. The Bench also noted that the respondents are free to raise objections regarding the maintainability of the petition. According to the petition, the Extradition Act, particularly Section 21, provides statutory protection that an extradited person cannot be tried for offences other than those for which he was extradited. The petition contends that the addition of new charges, including offences under Section 467 of the IPC, violates the Doctrine of Speciality and contradicts the extradition decree issued by UAE authorities. Michel's lawyer argued that Parliament's law prevails in the event of a conflict with a treaty, citing Supreme Court judgments such as Gramophone Company of India Ltd. vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Daya Singh Lahoria vs. Union of India. Michel further claims illegal detention, stating that he has already undergone the maximum prescribed sentence for the offences listed in the original chargesheet and the extradition decree. He alleged that continuing to keep him in custody amounts to being held as a "judicial hostage," violating Articles 21, 245 and 253 of the Constitution. The petition also argues that no evidence of cheating, money laundering or financial wrongdoing has been established in the chargesheets filed by the CBI and ED. It asserts that these additional charges do not have the sanction of the extradition decree and therefore cannot be sustained under Indian law. The Bench has posted the matter for the next hearing on January 9. (ANI)
|
