The Kerala High Court has ruled that Indian authorities must not disregard international arrest warrants conveyed through Interpol, even in the absence of a formal extradition request. This decision was articulated in the case Rakhul Krishnan v Union of India & ors, where the court emphasized the distinction between the immediate arrest of a fugitive within India and the process of extradition to another country.
Understanding the Judicial Perspective
A bench comprising Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta AK clarified the legal framework under the Extradition Act, 1962. Specifically, Sections 4 and 8 of the Act mandate a formal extradition request via diplomatic channels for the surrender of a fugitive. However, the court highlighted that such a request is unnecessary if the foreign country only requires the fugitive’s immediate arrest.
The court stated, “While for initiating action under Article 8 of the Extradition Treaty and Sections 4 to 8 of the Extradition Act, a prior requisition for surrender of a fugitive criminal must be made through diplomatic channels, there is no such requirement if the foreign state’s urgent need is for an immediate arrest.”
Procedural Guidelines for Authorities
The bench provided a procedural framework for Indian authorities upon receiving an international arrest warrant through Interpol. It directed India’s nodal agency to forward the warrant to the Central government, which can then approach the magistrate for a provisional arrest warrant under Section 34-B of the Act. Simultaneously, the nodal agency should inform the magistrate about the warrant, allowing the magistrate to decide independently on issuing an arrest warrant under Section 9 of the Act.
Justice Nambiar and Justice Preeta AK emphasized that these actions should occur concurrently to prevent the fugitive from absconding during the process. They also clarified that the nodal agency does not have the authority to arrest an individual solely based on the international warrant; such an arrest must be judicially sanctioned.
More Read
Case Background and Court’s Decision
The ruling emerged from an appeal by Rakhul Krishnan, an NRI businessman, against Sreejith Vijayan, who allegedly defaulted on a debt of 6 million UAE dirhams. A Dubai court had convicted and sentenced Vijayan to two years in prison, prompting Krishnan to seek an Interpol Red Corner Notice, which was issued on May 16, 2018, and relayed to India’s CBI-NCB Interpol.
Despite receiving the notice, Indian authorities did not act, citing the UAE’s lack of a formal extradition request. A single-judge bench had previously supported this stance, but the division bench disagreed, stating that the CBI-NCB Interpol should have informed both the government and the magistrate about the warrant to consider Vijayan’s immediate arrest.
The court expressed, “In any event, we are of the view that it was not open to the Nodal Agency to simply ignore the International arrest warrant issued in relation to the 8th respondent without forwarding the said arrest warrant to the Central Government and to the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned.”
More Read
Although the developments rendered Krishnan’s appeal moot, the court’s directive provides a clear protocol for handling international fugitives in future cases. Advocates Yeshwant Shenoy and Aysha Abraham represented Krishnan in the proceedings.
