Chawla extradition: UK high court raps India on MHA assurance

Britain’s high court has rapped India for not providing its second sovereign assurance on time in the Sanjeev Chawla extradition case, which led the lower court not taking it into consideration before preventing his extradition in October last.

Not taking the second assurance from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)on prison conditions for suspected cricket bookieChawla is the main reason for India appealing against the October 16 judgement of the Westminster Magistrates Court.

India had submitted the second assurance with more details on September 25, which was considered too late to be taken into consideration. Its first assurance of February 28 signed by MHAunder-secretary V Vishwanathan was dismissed by the lower court as being “general”.

The high court said in its ruling on Friday: “In our judgment the District Judge was entitled to say that the second assurance had come too late to be admitted at the final hearing…The second assurance was not provided on time”.

During the hearing on the appeal on April 24, Mark Summers of the Crown Prosecution Service, appearing for India, apologised for the delay in submitting the second assurance, but said the delay was “not for want of cooperation” but due to a misunderstanding.

The court said: “Although Mr Summers is right to say that it was only 5 weeks late, it was handed in on the day of the hearing in circumstances where the issue had been live for over a year…(There) was no good reason advanced for the failure to provide the second assurance on time.”

However, the court allowed India the opportunity to submit another assurance addressing specific points related to the conditions in which Chawla would be lodged in Tihar Jail, if extradited, to face trial in the match-fixing case related to South Africa’s cricket tour of India in 2000.

Assurances, it said, are not evidence and where a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment is established, it is not appropriate to discharge the requested person but to enable the requesting state to satisfy the court that the risk can be discounted by providing further assurances. The 1992India-UK extradition treaty also allows this.

“The District Judge did not take that step in this case. There does not appear to be any good reason for not taking this step in accordance with the guidance…This is particularly so given that it was common ground that the Government might make a further extradition request for Mr Chawla which would have added to the cost and caused delay”, the high court said.

Staying the appeal, the court gave India 42 days from May 4 to submit another sovereign assurance on prison conditions, and permitted both sides to apply to the court on the wording of the assurance and the timing of its production.

Assurances on behalf of the Indian state have been submitted in various extradition cases, including those related to Tiger Hanif (wanted in connection with two bomb attacks in Gujarat in 1993), Ravi Shankaran (Indian Navy war room leak) and Vijay Mallya (financial offences).