Delhi HC dismisses petition challenging extradition request by Australia

The Delhi High Court yesterday dismissed a writ petition challenging an inquiry by the Metropolitan Magistrate of Patiala House Court into the request for his extradition made by the Australian government..In 2008, the petitioner, while driving a vehicle in Austrialia, had caused injuries to two passers-by, leading to the death of one of them. He was subsequently taken into custody by the local police. Eventually, the petitioner came to India in 2009, alleging discrimination against him..The Union Ministry of External Affairs, by an order, had requested the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Court to inquire into the extradition request by the government of Australia. The Magistrate was required to consider the extraditability of the offences involved by determining whether a prima facie case exists in terms of the Extradition Act, 1962 and other applicable laws..Represented by Advocate K Singhal, the inquiry was challenged in the High Court primarily on three grounds:.No extradition treaty between Government of India and Government of Australia on the date of issuance of the order.At the time of issuance of the order, the arrangement of extradition with Australia did not include the offence of causing death by negligence as provided under Section 304A of the IPC as an extraditable offence in the second schedule of the un-amended Act, 1962 as well as the amended Act of 1993.Not clear as to whether the notification of 1971 or the later notification of the Treaty with Australia of the year 2011, had been laid before each house of Parliament, as mandated under Section 35 of the Act..The Single Judge Bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar observed that,.“India has extradition treaties with 28 states and it has extradition arrangement with 10 states including Australia…In the absence of any distinction now between a treaty arrangement and a treaty, no fault could be found with the application of the Act with the Government of Commonwealth of Australia.”.The Court held that no time limit has been provided under Section 35 of the Extradition Act for laying down such notifications before the Houses of Parliament..It was also held that Section 7 of Extradition Act, 1962 makes it very clear that in the inquiry under Section 7, it has to be found whether or not the offences charged against the fugitive are of a political character or it concerns extraditable offence. In this light, it was observed that,.“In case the Magistrate, after inquiry, is of the opinion that a prima facie case is not made out in support of the requisition of Australia, there would be no option for the Magistrate but to discharge the petitioner. .In case, a prima facie case is made out, the report of the Magistrate along with the written statement of the petitioner shall be committed to the Central Government for it to take a decision whether to accept the report and extradite him.”.Therefore, the Court found no good reason for it to interfere with the inquiry pending before the Magistrate..Read Judgment: