Nirav Modi a step closer to extradition as UK High Court rejects his appeal: Know what legal avenues he is left with

Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi has lost his appeal against extradition on mental health grounds as the High Court in London ruled that his risk of suicide is not such that it would be either unjust or oppressive to extradite him to India to face charges of fraud and money laundering.

The leave to appeal in the High Court had been granted on two grounds -- under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to hear arguments if it would “unjust or oppressive” to extradite 51-year-old Modi due to his mental state and Section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003, also related to mental health.

The verdict comes as a boost to New Delhi’s attempts to bring back the fugitive diamantaire to face fraud and money laundering charges in connection with the Rs 13,500-crore PNB scam. 

However, the process of bringing him back to India to be lodged at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai and stand trial for fraud and money laundering in the loan scam case still has some way to go.

As he has lost this appeal hearing, Modi can approach the Supreme Court on a point of law of public importance, to be applied for to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision within 14 days of a High Court verdict. However, this involves a high threshold as appeals to the Supreme Court can only be made if the High Court has certified that the case involves a point of law of general public importance.

Finally, after all avenues in the UK courts are exhausted, the diamantaire could still seek a so-called Rule 39 injunction from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

His legal team are yet to comment on any plans to appeal the High Court verdict. Meanwhile, Modi remains at Wandsworth Prison in south-west London since his arrest in March 2019.

Modi is the subject of two sets of criminal proceedings, with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case relating to a large-scale fraud upon PNB through the fraudulent obtaining of letters of undertaking (LoUs) or loan agreements, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case relating to the laundering of the proceeds of that fraud.

He also faces two additional charges of "causing the disappearance of evidence" and intimidating witnesses or “criminal intimidation to cause death”, which were added to the CBI case.