India is one of the few major democracies in the world that combines a unique legal system built upon the foundations of British colonial heritage, Hindu law principles, and constitutional norms. In recent decades, the country has found itself at the center of several high-profile international cases involving the extradition of individuals accused of economic and other serious offenses.
The issue of extradition occupies a special place in the Indian legal system. On one hand, India is a party to a number of bilateral extradition treaties. On the other, constitutional guarantees, judicial activism of the Supreme Court, and the principles of the Hindu legal tradition concerning the state’s duty to protect its citizens frequently come into conflict with international extradition requests.
Legal Framework: The Extradition Act of 1962 and Its Modern Interpretation
The primary legislative act governing extradition in India is the Extradition Act of 1962. This law was enacted shortly after independence and largely reproduces the British approach to this institution. Under the Act, extradition is permissible only where a treaty of surrender exists with the requesting state, or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.
To date, India has active extradition treaties with approximately 45 states, including the United States, the United Kingdom, the UAE, and a number of European countries. However, no such treaties exist with major partners such as Russia and China, creating significant legal gaps in international cooperation on criminal matters.
A cornerstone of Indian extradition law is the principle of double criminality: the act in question must constitute a criminal offense under the laws of both India and the requesting state. This principle frequently serves as a defense mechanism for individuals against whom extradition requests are made.
High-Profile Cases: Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Others
Among the most prominent contemporary cases involving extradition to and from India are those of Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi. Both individuals face charges of large-scale fraud and embezzlement, and both have taken refuge in the United Kingdom.
The case of Nirav Modi drew significant international attention: the diamond tycoon is accused of perpetrating a fraud involving Punjab National Bank totaling approximately two billion U.S. dollars. British courts approved his extradition in 2021; however, the process has been prolonged over several years due to appeals and claims relating to the defendant’s state of health.
These cases exposed a systemic problem: the ineffectiveness of mechanisms for enforcing extradition orders even where active treaties are in place. In response, India developed a system of so-called “Red Notices” in cooperation with Interpol, which has considerably accelerated the location and detention of fugitives in third countries.
The Role of Interpol in India’s Extradition System
India is an active Interpol member and makes extensive use of the Red Notice mechanism to locate and detain individuals evading justice abroad. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) serves as India’s National Central Bureau (NCB) within Interpol.
Over the past five years, the CBI has submitted several hundred requests for the issuance of Red Notices, a significant proportion of which concern economic crimes: bank fraud, tax evasion, and illicit capital flight. The Interpol mechanism enables India to conduct searches for wanted individuals across all 194 member states of the organization.
At the same time, the use of Interpol notices is subject to a number of legal constraints: a notice is not in itself an arrest warrant and does not obligate a member state to detain the individual sought. The final decision on detention is made by national authorities in accordance with domestic law. This circumstance is frequently exploited by defense counsel to delay extradition proceedings.
Constitutional Limitations and the Human Rights Dimension
The Supreme Court of India has maintained a consistent position on the protection of constitutional rights in the consideration of extradition requests. In particular, the Court has repeatedly emphasized that extradition cannot be sanctioned where there exists a genuine risk of violation of the fundamental rights of the person to be extradited in the requesting state — the so-called principle of non-refoulement.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Judicial practice has interpreted this right broadly, extending it to encompass the right to a fair trial, which substantially complicates the extradition process.
Particular attention should be paid to the problem of so-called “political” extradition. Indian practice has seen repeated instances in which requests from foreign states were characterized as politically motivated, which automatically resulted in a refusal of extradition under Article 31(e) of the Extradition Act of 1962.
Current Trends and Prospects
In 2023–2025, India undertook a number of legislative initiatives to modernize its extradition system. In particular, discussions are underway regarding the adoption of an updated extradition law that would reflect the realities of the digital age: extradition for cybercrime, cryptocurrency fraud, and cross-border financial offenses.
India is also actively negotiating new extradition treaties, primarily with Gulf states, which have traditionally served as destinations for financial fugitives. The agreement with the UAE has taken on particular significance, enabling the repatriation of a number of individuals accused of fraud.
India’s extradition system stands at a complex intersection of international obligations, constitutional guarantees, and national interests. Experience in recent years demonstrates that, despite significant legal and procedural challenges, India has been gradually improving the effectiveness of its mechanisms for international legal cooperation in criminal prosecution. The key drivers of this progress are cooperation with Interpol, the development of the bilateral treaty network, and judicial interpretation of constitutional norms.