HC seeks Centre’s response on Michel's plea challenging extradition treaty

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel seeking a declaration that the India-UAE extradition treaty is subordinate to the Extradition Act, a law enacted by Parliament.

A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain sought responses from the Ministries of Home Affairs and External Affairs, the CBI, and the Enforcement Directorate. The Bench also clarified that the respondents are free to raise objections on maintainability. The matter will be heard next on January 9.

Michel, a British national extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018, has been lodged in jail since then. He is accused of acting as a middleman to secure a contract for AgustaWestland to supply VVIP helicopters to the Government of India. Investigators allege that he entered into twelve contracts to channel illicit commissions worth €42.27 million, while the CBI has claimed that around $33 million in bribes moved through bank accounts in the UK and UAE.

This is Michel’s second challenge to the India-UAE treaty before the High Court. On November 17, the Court had refused to entertain his plea questioning the legality of Article 17 of the Treaty, noting that he had not sought consequential relief at the time.

In the present petition, Michel has urged the Court to hold that Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which prohibits trial for any offence not expressly mentioned in the extradition order, must override the 1999 Treaty provision permitting prosecution for additional “connected” offences. He has further challenged the trial court’s August 7 order rejecting his application under Section 436A CrPC seeking release from custody.

Appearing for Michel, Advocate Aljo K Joseph submitted that the CBI has been probing the case for thirteen years and yet the investigation remains incomplete. “I have been in custody for seven years,” he told the Bench, adding that supplementary chargesheets invoking Section 467 IPC, an offence carrying life imprisonment and not part of the Dubai extradition order, violated Section 21’s bar.

The petition states that Michel has already undergone the maximum sentence possible for the offences originally cited in the 2017 chargesheet under Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which carried a maximum term of five years at the time. His continued incarceration, including the period spent in UAE custody during extradition proceedings, is therefore illegal, it has been contended.

Central Government Standing Counsel Satya Ranjan Swain, representing the MHA and MEA, submitted that the plea is not maintainable. The Court has directed the respondents to file their replies, including on the maintainability issue.