Sanjay Bhandari v Government of India & Anor

In extradition proceedings to a category 2 territory, treaty-based specialty arrangements may satisfy the statutory requirement where the treaty, read as a whole, protects against prosecution for offences outside the permitted categories. The court may presume that the requesting state will comply with its treaty obligations unless compelling evidence indicates otherwise. Repeated earlier findings that arrangements are effective need not be revisited without cogent evidence of changed circumstances or actual breaches. The Secretary of State’s reasons need only be sufficient in the statutory and factual context; brevity alone does not make them inadequate. References in an extradition request to other investigations or allegations do not establish a real risk of specialty breach.

The applicant challenged the Secretary of State’s order for his extradition to India under the Extradition Act 2003. The extradition requests concerned money-laundering and tax-related offences. He argued that there were no adequate specialty arrangements, that the Treaty permitted prosecution for offences which were not extradition offences, and that the Secretary of State’s reasons were inadequate.

The District Judge had sent the case to the Secretary of State after rejecting the applicant’s objections. Permission to appeal was granted on several grounds, but the renewed application concerning specialty was refused. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State arguably erred in concluding that effective specialty protection existed between the United Kingdom and India.

1. Permission refused. The proposed appeal on specialty disclosed no arguable error in the Secretary of State’s decision to order extradition under the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The Secretary of State gave adequate reasons. Whether reasons are sufficient is context specific. The reasons were brief, but they identified the existing jurisprudence, the absence of compelling evidence of ineffective arrangements or previous breaches, and the refusal to seek further assurances.
3. There are effective specialty arrangements between the United Kingdom and India. Article 13(1) of the Extradition Treaty protects a person returned to India from being dealt with for pre-return offences except within the permitted categories. The court applied the conclusions reached in Patel v India, R (on the application of Vijay Mallya) v Government of India and the Secretary of State, and Modi v Government of India.
4. The argument that Article 13(1)(b) permits proceedings for a lesser offence which is not an extradition offence was artificial. Article 13 must be read with the Treaty as a whole. Under Article 1, return can lawfully be ordered only for an extradition offence, and Article 2(i) requires conduct punishable in both states by at least one year’s imprisonment. The Treaty therefore reflects the principal requirements of sections 137 and 138 of the Act.
5. The applicant produced no adequate evidence requiring the court to revisit the earlier conclusions. Affidavits from enforcement officers did not establish the practice of the Indian courts. No case demonstrating a breach of specialty after extradition from the United Kingdom to India was cited. Multiple investigations or allegations mentioned in the requests did not establish a real likelihood of prohibited proceedings.

The judgment records that the District Judge sent the extradition case to the Secretary of State. Jay J granted permission to appeal on Grounds 3, 5 and 7, refused permission on other grounds, and the present court subsequently granted permission on Grounds 1, 2 and 6 but refused the renewed application on Ground 8 concerning specialty.