Today, On 24th November, The Delhi High Court has sought the Centre’s response on Christian Michel’s plea challenging the India–UAE extradition treaty in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam. Michel has contested the trial court’s order rejecting his request for release from jail.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Central government regarding a petition filed by Christian Michel, an accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam.
Michel seeks to have the India-UAE extradition treaty declared subordinate to the Extradition Act, which is a law enacted by the Indian Parliament.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain requested responses from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The Bench noted that the respondents are permitted to raise objections concerning the maintainability of the petition.
The next hearing is scheduled for January 9.
In his petition, Michel requests the Court to affirm that Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which prohibits India from prosecuting an extradited individual for any offence not explicitly mentioned in the extradition order, should take precedence over the 1999 India-UAE extradition treaty.
This treaty allows prosecution not only for the offences explicitly listed in the extradition order but also for other “connected” offences.
Additionally, he has contested the trial court’s decision from August 7, which rejected his application for release under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Advocate Aljo K Joseph represented Michel and informed the Bench of his petition’s requests, which include a challenge to the treaty and to the trial court’s August 7 decision denying his release. He pointed out that the CBI has been investigating the case for 13 years, yet the inquiry remains incomplete.
He stated,
“I have been in custody for seven years,” .
In response, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Satya Ranjan Swain appeared for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), arguing that the plea was not maintainable.
The Court instructed the respondents to submit their replies, including on the maintainability issue.
Michel’s petition focuses on his argument that Indian agencies cannot invoke Article 17 of the India–UAE Treaty, which allows for prosecution for offences ‘connected’ to those for which extradition was granted. He contends that this Article contravenes Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which prohibits trying an extradited individual for crimes not expressly listed in the extradition decree.
According to his claims, Indian authorities breached this safeguard by invoking Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (which carries a life sentence) through supplementary charge sheets, despite this offence not being included in the extradition order issued by Dubai courts.
Michel argues that he has already served the maximum possible sentence for the offences for which he was extradited and that his ongoing detention in India is unlawful.
The petition points out that the initial 2017 CBI chargesheet accused him under Sections 8, 9, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which carried a maximum sentence of five years at that time. It is contended that Michel’s total time in custody, including during extradition proceedings in the UAE, has surpassed this statutory limit.
Michel, a British national, was extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018, and has remained in custody since.
Michel, a British national, was extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018, and has been in custody since. He is accused of acting as an intermediary for helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland, facilitating the company’s contract with the then-Congress-led Indian government for VVIP transport helicopters.
Allegedly, Michel engaged in twelve contracts with AgustaWestland to justify illicit commissions or kickbacks totaling €42.27 million associated with the purchase of VVIP helicopters for the Government of India.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) asserts that bribes amounting to approximately US$33 million were funneled through bank accounts in the UK and UAE.
This marks the second petition Michel has filed with the High Court concerning the India-UAE treaty.
Earlier, On November 17, the High Court declined to entertain his request for a declaration that Article 17 of the extradition treaty was unlawful, noting that Michel did not seek any consequential relief in that plea.
Click Here to Read More Reports On James Michel