What Are India’s Constitutional Safeguards in Extradition Law?

India’s extradition laws are designed to fulfill its international obligations while safeguarding the fundamental rights of its citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The Constitution provides several constitutional safeguards to ensure that extradition requests do not violate an individual’s rights. These protections include provisions for due process, fair trial, protection against torture and inhuman treatment, and judicial oversight. Extradition requests cannot proceed arbitrarily and must be in accordance with the Indian Constitution to protect individuals from unfair or unjust treatment.

India's extradition law operates within a framework that balances the right to a fair process with international obligations under bilateral and multilateral treaties. Therefore, India's approach to extradition is built on constitutional guarantees that provide an essential check on the process, preventing potential abuse.

Key Constitutional Safeguards in Extradition Law

Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)

Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This provision is a cornerstone in protecting individuals from arbitrary or unfair extradition.

Any extradition request must be compliant with due process, ensuring that the person’s life and liberty are not unjustly compromised. Extradition can be denied if it is found that the individual’s right to a fair trial or protection from torture would be violated in the requesting country.

Extradition requests may also be denied if the accused risks facing the death penalty, torture, or inhumane treatment in the requesting country. This aligns with India’s commitment to protecting human rights and adhering to international treaties that forbid such practices.

Right to Equality Before the Law (Article 14)

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. In the context of extradition, this means that individuals cannot be discriminated against based on arbitrary or unjust grounds.

Extradition requests must be processed without bias or discrimination. The process should apply equally to all individuals regardless of their nationality or the crime for which they are sought.

The principle of dual criminality (i.e., the act must be considered a crime in both countries) is central to ensuring equality in treatment under the law.

Protection from Extradition for Political Offenses (Article 13)

Article 13 of the Constitution deals with the laws in force in India, stating that any law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights will be void. This includes extradition treaties that may conflict with an individual’s rights.

Extradition requests cannot be granted for individuals accused of committing political offenses, as defined by international law. The Constitution provides safeguards to ensure that individuals are not extradited for political reasons, thus protecting freedom of speech, assembly, and expression.

The principle of non-refoulement (not returning individuals to a country where they face political persecution) applies to individuals at risk of facing political charges upon extradition.

Right to a Fair Trial (Article 21 and Article 22)

An accused individual has the right to a fair trial, and this principle applies to extradition cases as well. This includes ensuring that the accused will have access to a fair trial if extradited to face charges.

Article 22 provides protection against arbitrary arrest and mandates that a person arrested must be informed of the reasons for their arrest and be given an opportunity to be heard before a magistrate.

Therefore, India will refuse extradition if there is a reasonable belief that the accused will not be given a fair trial in the requesting country, such as the possibility of being denied legal counsel or facing trial based on coerced confessions.

Protection Against Torture and Inhuman Treatment

Article 21 also protects individuals from being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Extradition requests will be denied if there is a credible risk that the individual would face torture, inhumane conditions, or discriminatory practices in the requesting country.

India is bound by international conventions, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and it has a responsibility to prevent the extradition of individuals who might face such treatment in other jurisdictions.

Extradition is not permissible if the requesting country is likely to apply inhumane or degrading punishments to the individual.

Dual Criminality

Dual criminality is a key principle of extradition law, which means that the act for which the accused is wanted must be punishable by law in both the requesting country and in India.

Article 13 and Article 14 provide that India will not extradite individuals for actions that are not considered criminal offenses under Indian law. The accused cannot be extradited for conduct that is not a crime under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or other applicable Indian laws.

Judicial Oversight

Extradition in India is subject to judicial review, ensuring that Indian courts have the final say on whether extradition should occur. Courts have the responsibility to review the evidence, the legality of the request, and the possible violations of the individual’s rights.

The extradition process can be challenged in Indian courts, and judicial scrutiny is vital to ensure that extradition proceedings follow constitutional provisions and are in line with human rights standards.

No Extradition in Cases of Death Penalty

India’s Constitutional commitment to human rights prohibits the extradition of individuals who are at risk of facing the death penalty in the requesting country, especially if the requesting country does not offer adequate assurances that the accused will not be subject to capital punishment.

This aligns with India’s abolitionist stance on capital punishment in the majority of cases.

Example

Suppose an individual, A, is wanted in Country X for drug trafficking and money laundering. Country X has a bilateral extradition treaty with India, but A argues that extradition should be denied because they will face torture or inhumane treatment in Country X.

• Judicial Review: The Indian courts would review the claim of A based on Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). If credible evidence suggests that A would face torture in Country X, the courts might deny the extradition request.
• Diplomatic Assurances: If Country X provides diplomatic assurances that A will not face torture or inhumane conditions, India may proceed with extradition, provided the assurances are legally binding and in line with international human rights standards.
• Political Offenses: If A is accused of committing political offenses under Country X’s laws, India would also refuse extradition under the provisions of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which prevents the extradition of individuals charged with political crimes.
• Dual Criminality: If drug trafficking or money laundering is not recognized as a crime under Indian law, India would refuse the extradition request under the principle of dual criminality.

Conclusion

India’s constitutional safeguards in extradition law reflect a commitment to fundamental rights and international human rights norms. Extradition cannot be used to circumvent an individual’s constitutional protections, such as the right to a fair trial, protection from torture, or the death penalty. Judicial oversight, due process, and principles like dual criminality play a crucial role in ensuring that extradition requests are handled justly and in line with India's constitutional framework.