A critical analysis of extradition law between India and the UK

What is Extradition?

Extradition is the process by which one country or jurisdiction turns over a person who has been charged with or found guilty of a crime in another country to law enforcement officials in that country. The agreements negotiated are what determine how the two nations will work together to implement the law. Extradition in India is governed by the Extradition Act of 1962. Based on standards like the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, extradition is practiced globally (1964). Criminals from the military and the church are exempt from extradition.

What is the purpose of Extradition?

Each state has legal authority over the citizens who reside inside its borders. Nonetheless, after committing a crime, a person might leave the country. The harmed state is ineffective in this matter due to jurisdictional issues. Nevertheless, this situation is insufficient for maintaining law and order, and by providing the criminal with a haven, it undermines the goal of the law. Thus, acceptance of the extradition concept is necessary.

What is the extradition process?

The person who is being extradited must first have committed a crime and fled to another country. The second state to which the accused or convicted individual fled will receive a request from the first state from which they fled once the first criteria have been satisfied. This is known as the requesting step. 

The search for the accused or convicted person will start as soon as the second state receives the request. Now the treaty’s purpose enters the picture; if one exists, the state that has been given the request will start looking for the accused or guilty. The state has the right to immediately reject such a request in the absence of a treaty.

As a result, the most important—yet slowest—step of the extradition process starts once the search for the accused or convicted person is over and the person is caught. At this point, the trial by jurisdiction stage starts.

If a person from India flees to England, the English court starts the trial and requests all evidence from India, which India must deliver to the seeking state, i.e., England. Only after India is completely satisfied with all the evidence, the extradition process begins, and when it comes to England, the trial by jurisdiction stage starts.


It is common knowledge that states are constrained by geographical boundaries and are prohibited from enforcing their criminal laws abroad. As a result, through extradition treaties, States work together to bring fugitives to justice. Governments abide by the principle of diplomacy to maintain international cooperation because there is no Convention or Charter in international law that obligates any State to extradite citizens.

The Indian Extradition Act, of 1962 (referred to as “the Act”) was created by India to regulate the extradition of fugitives from other countries to India or from India to any foreign country. A formal request must be submitted by the “Comprehensive Guidelines for Investigation Abroad and Issuance of Letters Rogatory (LRs)” published by the Ministry of Home Affairs to start the extradition process.

Only once an accusatory document has been submitted and a warrant for the accused’s arrest has been issued by the relevant magistrate may an extradition request be lodged.

When a magistrate receives a request that is deemed to be an apparent affidavit of an accusation, it is essential to establish the prima facie case (containing facts, history, and evidence) against the accused and to bring the accused to trial.

The terms of any bilateral treaty, if any, are in addition to the Act’s stipulations and apply to extradition from any foreign nation. At the moment, India has 9 additional extradition agreements, in addition to extradition treaties with 47 other nations.

A specific treaty, the 1993 bilateral extradition agreement between India and the UK, has presented problems for India regularly since it was established.

The article seeks to analyze why it is past time for India to review its long-standing treaty with the UK, adopt comprehensive measures to amend and bring changes to hasten the process, and establish an effective mechanism to deal with the rising number of white-collar crimes committed by Indian fugitives.

The extradition of offenders from the United Kingdom has not gone smoothly for India. The UK has trouble extraditing offenders to India despite the two nations’ extradition agreement because of the appalling conditions in Indian prisons.

The UK does not, however, extradite offenders to the United States for a variety of reasons. The fugitive, who often opposes extradition, nevertheless frequently raises this justification as a key defense. And why wouldn’t he be? Who wouldn’t want to avoid India’s draconian legal system?

Thus, the accused believe that arguing their extradition to the State that has requested them for ten years is a better option.

It makes an effort to analyze these issues and determine how reasonable they are. But what answer can you provide when a situation arises that defies all sense?

While some issues are valid, others are just unclear. Yet, I have made an effort to identify the fundamental problems that exist in this situation and have modestly put forward potential answers.


The abecedarian tenets of transnational cooperation and state tactfulness serve as the foundation for repatriation. A successful repatriation pact can only be established with good ties between nations. Times of fruitless attempts to seize exiles are wasted because of nebulous or ineffective repatriation covenants. India has plodded to extradite culprits to India so they can stand execution since it began administering the India- UK  convention.

A  visionary reform in the extraditions frame has been long overdue after 29 times and a success rate of just 36. When these exiles either claim “ self-murder Attempt ” or “ Declaring Bankruptcy, ” India, despite its attempts to ultimately gain a favorable decision, has another challenge. 

It becomes essential for India to modernize decades-old repatriation accords and include clauses to speed up the process. With the legislation has changed, it’s necessary to produce a  devoted agency with a task force concentrated on extraditing culprits to India without having to battle for compliance at every position of the government.

The standard text defense in similar situations is that jail circumstances are deplorable, and it’s the strongest of all other defenses. It’s urgently necessary to reform Indian jails to cleave to transnational morals, cover abecedarian mortal rights, and stop detriment to captures ’ lives. 

Due to the steadily rising number of profitable crimes, India needs to be on guard and apply strict changes to ensure quick and effective repatriation procedures and inhibit culprits on the run from the law from leading a  sybaritic life free from the reach of Indian authorities.

Leave a Reply