A gangster’s case triggered concern in the Supreme Court on Tuesday about the “international ramifications” India may face if seen to renege on “solemn” promises made to foreign powers and their courts while securing an extradition.
The court’s apprehension gains significance with the Union government pursuing the extradition of several prominent fugitives, especially those involved in money laundering cases involving crores.
The government would surely need the cooperation of foreign nations to bring the runaways back to stand trial.
The question about India’s commitment to its promises came up during a hearing on the “solemn sovereign assurance” made to a Portugal court to realise the extradition of one-time mob boss Abu Salem.
Salem was arrested in Portugal and extradited to India. He is currently serving a life sentence for the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts.
Salem has argued in the Supreme Court that the punishment of life imprisonment violated the mandates of extradition India had agreed to in 2002.
He said that then Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister L.K. Advani had given a “solemn sovereign assurance” to a Portugal court that he would neither be sentenced to death nor serve more than 25 years in prison.
‘Advani’s assurance no guarantee’
However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in a recent affidavit, maintained that Mr. Advani’s assurance was no guarantee.
“The solemn sovereign assurance given by the then Deputy Prime Minister of India cannot be construed as a guarantee/undertaking to assure that no court in India would award the punishment provided by Indian laws in force to the accused Abu Salem... The argument of the appellant [Salem] that imprisonment term cannot extend beyond 25 years as per the assurance given is legally unsustainable,” the CBI claimed in the Supreme Court.
Make stand clear: SC tells govt.
Making its dissatisfaction with the affidavit plain, the Supreme Court directed the Union Home Secretary to make the stand of the government clear. The court said the CBI was only a prosecution agency. It wanted to hear from the government directly, and that too, from the Union Home Secretary.
While doing so, the court advised the government to take into account the international ramifications of being seen to divert from past assurances.
“In your [government] wisdom of international affairs you did something... In your political wisdom you did something... Now you have to take a stand. You have to say whether or not you will stand by the international commitments made by the Deputy Prime Minister... Let the Home Secretary file an affidavit,” Justice Kaul addressed Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj.
Justice Kaul said a decision made by India in this case would suffer consequences in future when the country wanted to extradite someone.
“This will have far-reaching ramifications the next time you want to extradite someone,” the court warned the government.
Salem’s lawyer said the government was taking a “u-turn” from the assurance given during the extradition.
“The Union Home Secretary has to file a reasonable affidavit before us within a reasonable time,” Justice Kaul said.
The court listed the case after three weeks in April.
