Fugitive Mehul Choksi Moves Belgian Supreme Court Against Extradition to India
Background of the Case
Fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi, wanted in India for his alleged involvement in the multi-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case, has filed an appeal before the Belgian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) challenging the Antwerp Court of Appeals’ decision to extradite him to India.
Choksi, who has been lodged in a prison in Antwerp since his arrest in April 2024, approached the Belgian Supreme Court on October 30, 2024, after the appellate court approved India’s extradition request based on charges filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Antwerp’s Attorney General Ken Witpas confirmed that the appeal is strictly limited to legal issues and that execution of the extradition order is suspended until the Belgian Supreme Court delivers its ruling.
The Antwerp Court’s Extradition Order
On October 17, 2024, the four-member Chamber of Accusation (Charging Chamber) at the Antwerp Court of Appeals ruled in favor of India’s request for extradition, stating that:
- 
Choksi is not facing a political trial.
 - 
There is no substantial risk of torture or denial of justice in India.
 - 
The charges of criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, fraud, embezzlement, and misconduct are enforceable under both Indian and Belgian law.
 
The court recognized the principle of reciprocity, which requires that the offenses be punishable in both countries with at least a one-year imprisonment term.
Legal Grounds for Extradition
India’s extradition request invoked multiple provisions of Indian law, international treaties, and conventions, including:
Relevant Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections
- 
Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy
 - 
Section 201 – Destruction of evidence
 - 
Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust
 - 
Section 420 – Cheating
 - 
Section 477A – Falsification of accounts
 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- 
Section 7 – Public servant taking gratification
 - 
Section 13 – Criminal misconduct by public servant
 
These offences are recognizable and punishable under Belgian criminal law, satisfying the dual criminality principle under the India-Belgium Extradition Treaty (1901).
Additionally, India cited obligations under the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) to strengthen its extradition claim.
Arguments Raised by Mehul Choksi
Choksi’s defense raised several objections before the Belgian courts:
- 
Claim of Abduction: He alleged that he was abducted in Antigua on India’s instructions.
 - 
Risk of Torture: He claimed potential inhuman or degrading treatment in Indian prisons.
 - 
Unfair Trial: He argued that he would not receive a fair trial in India.
 - 
Interpol’s Decision: He cited the 2022 decision of the Commission for the Control of Interpol Files (CCF) to remove his Red Notice as proof of bias.
 
However, the Antwerp Court dismissed all these arguments, finding no credible evidence to support his claims. The judgment stated:
“It cannot be inferred from the documents supplied by the person concerned that he was kidnapped in Antigua on the instructions of Indian authorities. The CCF decision is inconclusive and conditional in nature.”
Assurances Provided by India
To ensure compliance with international human rights standards, Indian authorities provided detailed assurances to the Belgian court regarding Choksi’s treatment upon extradition. These included:
- 
Choksi will be lodged at Barrack No. 12, Arthur Road Jail, Mumbai, which meets European CPT (Committee for Prevention of Torture) standards.
 - 
He will receive adequate food, clean drinking water, and medical care.
 - 
He will have access to newspapers, television, and medical consultation with a private doctor.
 - 
He will not be placed in solitary confinement.
 
Such assurances were crucial in countering allegations of poor detention conditions in India.
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
1. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, encompassing the protection of human dignity and fair treatment even during detention or trial.
2. Article 14
Ensures equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary action, applicable even in extradition proceedings.
3. Extradition Act, 1962
This Act provides the domestic legal framework for extradition.
- 
Section 2(c) defines an extraditable offence as one punishable by at least one year of imprisonment in both jurisdictions.
 - 
Section 3 empowers the Central Government to act on extradition requests under bilateral treaties.
 - 
Section 29 allows temporary or conditional surrender based on foreign court proceedings.
 
4. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs)
Under Section 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), India can seek and offer assistance to foreign nations for the collection of evidence and extradition.
Judicial Precedents
Several Indian judicial precedents underline the principles guiding extradition proceedings:
- 
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
— Reiterated that no person can be subjected to inhuman treatment or torture, upholding the sanctity of Article 21. - 
Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 11 SCC 214
— The Supreme Court held that assurances given to Portugal during Abu Salem’s extradition must be honored, reinforcing the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). - 
Government of India v. Mubarak Ali Ahmed (1982 AIR 1101)
— Clarified the scope of dual criminality and reciprocity in extradition matters. - 
Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India (2001) 4 SCC 516
— Held that an extradited person can only be tried for offences specifically mentioned in the extradition order, ensuring fairness and adherence to treaty obligations. 
International Legal Framework
Choksi’s extradition proceedings are also guided by international instruments that promote cooperation against financial crimes:
- 
UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), 2003
 - 
UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), 2000
 - 
European Convention on Extradition (1957)
 
These conventions emphasize cross-border accountability, protection of due process, and human rights compliance.
Current Status and Way Forward
Choksi’s appeal before the Belgian Court of Cassation is limited to legal merits—the court will not re-evaluate factual findings but will determine if the extradition order adhered to procedural law. Until the Supreme Court rules, his extradition remains suspended.
Indian authorities remain optimistic, given the strong evidentiary record of fraud, money laundering, and diversion of funds presented by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED). India’s legal teams, supported by a European law firm, have been actively pursuing the case to ensure Choksi’s return to face trial under Indian jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The case of Mehul Choksi v. Government of India (Belgium, 2024) highlights the complex interplay between international law, diplomatic assurance, and extradition principles.
With India strengthening its global cooperation mechanisms, the verdict of the Belgian Supreme Court could mark a turning point in bringing economic offenders to justice.
If the appeal is dismissed, it will pave the way for Choksi’s extradition to India — a major victory in India’s continuing fight against economic fugitives and financial crime.

Comments
Post a Comment