Nirav Deepak Modi v Government of India

The jurisdiction to reopen an extradition appeal is exceptional. The applicant must show that reopening is necessary to avoid real injustice, that the circumstances are exceptional and that no alternative effective remedy exists. An application must also be made as soon as practicable.

In assessing assurances against a human-rights risk, the court asks whether they sufficiently mitigate the relevant risk in practical as well as legal terms. The court considers their quality and reliability in context, including the authority of the person giving them, the receiving state’s practices and the prospect of compliance. Comprehensive, specific and reliable diplomatic assurances may answer a real risk of prohibited treatment, even where their domestic enforceability is uncertain.

The Government of India sought the extradition of Nirav Modi in connection with alleged fraud, money laundering and interference with evidence and witnesses. The District Judge found no bar to extradition, and the Secretary of State ordered extradition. This Court dismissed Mr Modi’s appeal in [2022] EWHC 2829 (Admin).

After the decision in Bhandari v Government of India [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin), Mr Modi applied under CrimPR Part 50.27 to reopen the appeal. He relied on evidence concerning endemic torture and ill-treatment by Indian investigative agencies and challenged later assurances that he would not be interrogated. The central issues were whether the application met the statutory reopening criteria and whether the assurances sufficiently eliminated the Article 3 risk.

1. The Court refused permission to reopen the extradition appeal. Although the later decision in Bhandari disclosed exceptional circumstances and, absent adequate assurances, the application would have considerable force, the application was brought as soon as practicable and the remaining requirements of CrimPR Part 50.27 were not satisfied.
2. The Court applied the principles in McIntyre v Government of the United States [2014] EWHC 1886 (Admin), emphasising finality in extradition litigation. Reopening is not a means of having a disappointed party’s arguments, evidence or material reconsidered. It is available only where later events make reconsideration necessary to avoid real injustice, in exceptional circumstances and where no effective alternative remedy exists.
3. The assessment of assurances was guided by Othman v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 1 and Giese v Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 1480 (Admin). The overarching question was whether the assurances sufficiently mitigated the relevant risk, assessed by reference to their practical as well as legal effect and the context in which they were given. The Othman factors were not a mechanical checklist.
4. The assurances were specific, comprehensive and reliable. They were given by a competent official of the Ministry of Home Affairs and bound the GoI, the State of Maharashtra and the five investigating agencies. They expressly prohibited interrogation by the CBI, ED and other agencies, subject only to prior recourse to UK authorities. The Court accepted that they had been given in good faith and with the intention that they should bind the relevant authorities.
5. Domestic enforceability was not decisive. Diplomatic cognisability was sufficient because breach would seriously damage mutual trust and confidence between India and the United Kingdom. The doctrine of specialty added nothing because the assurances independently prohibited interrogation. Any permission condition could not create a practical route to interrogation, and any interrogation would breach the assurances.
6. The Court declined to decide conclusively the effect of sections 267–269 of the Criminal Procedure Code or the adequacy of video-conferencing facilities. The assurances bound the DRI even if Mr Modi were produced before a court in Gujarat, and release on bail did not materially increase the risk. The application to reopen was therefore refused.

• High Court (King's Bench Division), Divisional Court: The Court dismissed Mr Modi’s extradition appeal in [2022] EWHC 2829 (Admin).
• High Court (King's Bench Division), Divisional Court: The application for permission to reopen that appeal under CrimPR Part 50.27 was refused.