The Government of India v Chawla

In extradition proceedings, the adequacy of a diplomatic assurance must be assessed in the light of all information available to the court. A specific assurance from a friendly foreign government governed by the rule of law may be accepted without a technical analysis founded on suspicion that it will be evaded. Where the assurance adequately addresses the identified risks of treatment contrary to article 3 of the ECHR, including accommodation, violence and medical care, the court may conclude that no real risk remains. Under Extradition Act 2003, section 106, the court may quash a discharge and remit the case to the district judge for further proceedings.

The Government of India appealed against a district judge’s order dated 16 October 2017 discharging Sanjeev Kumar Chawla in relation to an extradition request concerning alleged cricket-match fixing. The discharge followed findings that conditions in Delhi’s Tihar prisons created a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the ECHR.

The Divisional Court’s earlier judgment, [2018] EWHC 1050 (Admin), identified deficiencies in two assurances but stayed the appeal to allow a further assurance. The Government then provided a third assurance addressing cell space, protection from intra-prisoner violence and medical treatment. The central issue was whether, having regard to all available information, that assurance removed the real risk.

1. The appeal was allowed. The third assurance was sufficient to show that Mr Chawla would not face a real risk of impermissible treatment in Tihar prisons.
2. The court assessed the assurance in the light of all information available to it. Following Giese v Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 1480 (Admin); [2018] 4 WLR 103, assurances from friendly foreign governments governed by the rule of law should not be approached through a technical analysis based on suspicion that the promises will be evaded.
3. The assurance was sufficiently specific about the location and size of the cells, and guaranteed single occupancy. The court therefore found no continuing real risk arising from the cell in which Mr Chawla would be held.
4. The identified wards were not high-security wards and housed inmates of satisfactory conduct. Although absolute safety could not be guaranteed, the court found no real risk of intra-prisoner violence.
5. The assurance guaranteed immediate medical treatment if required. Despite a shortfall in medical officers, that guarantee was sufficient.
6. Pursuant to section 106 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court quashed the order discharging Mr Chawla, remitted the case to the district judge, and directed the district judge to proceed as if the discharge had not been ordered.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the district judge discharged Mr Chawla on 16 October 2017 because conditions in Tihar prisons created a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the ECHR.
• Divisional Court: in [2018] EWHC 1050 (Admin), the court found a real risk but allowed the Government of India an opportunity to provide a further assurance.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the third assurance removed the real risk; the discharge order was quashed and the case remitted under section 106 of the Extradition Act 2003.