Extradition, Asylum,

&
DeportatioN

Dr. Madhuri Irene

Extradition
 Definition, Meaning and Purpose
Extradition is a legal process in which one state surrenders a person to another state for
prosecution or punishment for crimes committed within the requesting state's jurisdiction.This
process is a critical tool for international cooperation in combating transnational crime while
ensuring justice and accountability.
Definition: is the process by which one country, upon a request from another country,
surrenders an individual accused or convicted of a crime to the requesting country for
prosecution or punishment. It's a mechanism of international cooperation in law enforcement.
Purpose of Extradition: The primary purpose of extradition is to ensure that individuals who
have committed crimes in one jurisdiction are brought to justice in that jurisdiction, even if they
flee to another country. It serves several key purposes:
• Ensuring Justice: Extradition ensures that criminals cannot evade justice by fleeing to another
country. It upholds the principle that criminals should be held accountable for their actions.
• Deterring Crime: The knowledge that extradition is possible can deter individuals from
committing crimes, as they know that they cannot escape justice by fleeing to another
country.
• International Cooperation: Extradition promotes international cooperation in law enforcement
by facilitating the exchange of criminals between countries.
• Protecting Public Safety: By removing dangerous criminals from society, extradition helps to
protect public safety.
 Key Principles of Extradition
1. Principle of Dual Criminality : The act for which extradition is sought must be a
crime in both the requesting and requested states. Ensures that a person is not
extradited for an offense not recognized as illegal in the requested state. Ex: If a
person is charged with blasphemy in the requesting state but blasphemy is not a
crime in the requested state, extradition may be denied.
2. Principle of Specialty: The extradited individual can only be tried or punished for
the specific offense(s) mentioned in the extradition request. Protects against misuse of
extradition by limiting the scope of legal proceedings to the agreed-upon charges. Ex:
If someone is extradited for fraud, they cannot be prosecuted for unrelated crimes like
tax evasion without the requested state's consent.
3. Non-Extradition of Nationals: Many states refuse to extradite their own citizens,
offering to prosecute them domestically instead. Preserves national sovereignty and
protects the rights of citizens under domestic laws. Ex: Germany and France often
invoke this principle, as their constitutions restrict the extradition of nationals.
Exception: Some states, such as the U.S., permit extradition of nationals if treaties
allow.
4. Political Offense Exception: Extradition requests for offenses considered
"political" in nature (e.g., treason, sedition, rebellion) are often denied. Prevents the
use of extradition to suppress political dissent or opposition. Ex: An activist accused of
sedition in a repressive regime might be protected from extradition by another state.
Exception: Certain acts, such as terrorism or genocide, are excluded from this
protection under international conventions.
5. Non-Refoulement: A person cannot be extradited to a state where they risk
torture, inhuman treatment, or unfair trial. Upholds international human rights norms,
particularly under the UN Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Ex: Courts may refuse extradition to countries
with a poor human rights record, even if a valid extradition treaty exists.
6. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The requesting state must present sufficient evidence
to establish a prima facie case or meet the probable cause standard, depending on
the treaty or domestic law. Protects individuals from frivolous or politically motivated
extradition requests. Ex: A requested state may require detailed evidence of the
alleged crime before approving extradition.
7. Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy (Ne Bis in Idem): A person cannot be
extradited for a crime for which they have already been tried and convicted or
acquitted in any jurisdiction. Ensures fairness and prevents multiple punishments for
the same offense. Ex: If an individual is acquitted of fraud in one country, they
cannot be extradited to another country to face trial for the same act.
8. Timeliness: Extradition requests may be denied if the alleged offense is time-
barred under the statute of limitations of the requested state. Recognizes the
importance of timely prosecution and prevents indefinite legal uncertainty for
individuals. Ex: A request for a crime committed decades ago may be rejected if the
limitation period has expired.
9. Reciprocity: States may extradite individuals only if the requesting state
offers reciprocal extradition rights. Ensures mutual respect and equal
treatment under international agreements. Ex: A country might decline an
extradition request if the requesting state does not honor its own extradition
obligations.
10. Fair Trial Assurance: The requested state may require guarantees that
the extradited individual will receive a fair trial in the requesting state. Prevents
extradition to jurisdictions where due process is not assured. Ex: Extradition
requests to states with inadequate judicial independence or biased legal
systems may be denied.
11. Humanitarian Considerations: Extradition may be refused on
humanitarian grounds, such as severe health issues or the potential for
disproportionate punishment. Ensures that extradition does not cause undue
harm or violate basic human dignity. Ex: A court may deny extradition if the
individual is terminally ill or if the requesting state imposes the death penalty
without assurances to commute the sentence.
• These principles ensure that extradition is conducted fairly, respects the
sovereignty of states, and upholds the rights and dignity of individuals. By
adhering to these principles, the international community fosters cooperation
while safeguarding justice and human rights.
 Difference Between Extradition and Expulsion
Aspect Extradition Expulsion

The formal process by which one state The unilateral act of a state to remove
surrenders an individual to another state a non-citizen from its territory, typically
Definition
based on legal agreements for for violating immigration or residency
prosecution or punishment. laws.

Governed by bilateral or multilateral Governed by domestic immigration

Legal Basis treaties (e.g., extradition treaties) and laws and discretionary powers of the
domestic laws. state.

Based on criminal charges for specific Not necessarily related to criminal

Nature of
offenses, such as murder, fraud, or offenses; often tied to immigration or
Offense
terrorism. security concerns.

Based on criminal charges for specific Not necessarily related to criminal

Nature of
offenses, such as murder, fraud, or offenses; often tied to immigration or
Offense
terrorism. security concerns.
Aspect Extradition Expulsion

Primarily an administrative process,

Involves judicial and executive
Judicial with limited or no judicial involvement,
processes to ensure compliance with
Involvement though courts may intervene in cases of
treaties and legal safeguards.
abuse.

Applies to both citizens (in rare cases) and Generally applies to non-citizens who
Applicability non-citizens, depending on the requested have no legal right to reside in the
state’s laws and treaty obligations. expelling state.

Subject to international human rights

Also subject to non-refoulement
Non- norms, such as the prohibition of
principles, particularly under refugee
Refoulement extradition to states where torture or
and human rights law.
inhuman treatment is likely.

Expulsion of individuals overstaying their

Extradition of Nirav Modi from the UK to
Example visas or posing a threat to national
India for financial fraud charges.
security.
 Restrictions on Extradition
1. Non-Extradition of Nationals
2. Dual Criminality Requirement
3. Rule of Specialty
4. Political Offense Exception
5. Non-Refoulement and Human Rights Considerations
6. Prohibition Against Extradition for Religious, Ethnic, or Racial Persecution
7. Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy (Ne Bis in Idem)
8. Statute of Limitations
9. Fair Trial and Death Penalty Concerns
10. Humanitarian Grounds
11. Absence of an Extradition Treaty
12. Political Influence or Diplomatic Relations
13. Lack of Evidentiary Support
1. Non-Extradition of Nationals : Most states, due to constitutional or legal
provisions, refuse to surrender their own nationals for extradition. The right to
national sovereignty and constitutional protection may prevent the
extradition of a state's citizens to another jurisdiction.
Alternative: In such cases, the requested state may choose to prosecute its
national domestically for the alleged offense (principle of aut dedere aut
judicare – “extradite or prosecute”). Ex: France typically does not extradite its
nationals, but under certain conditions, it may prosecute the individual under
French law.
2. Dual Criminality: Extradition can only be granted if the alleged offense is
criminal in both the requesting and the requested state (the principle of dual
criminality). Ensures that an individual cannot be extradited for an act that is
not considered a crime in the requested state. Ex: Extradition for crimes like
blasphemy or adultery may be denied if the requested state does not
recognize such acts as crimes.
3. Rule of Specialty: The individual being extradited can only be tried or
punished for the specific offense(s) for which extradition was granted.
Prevents the requesting state from prosecuting the individual for crimes not
mentioned in the extradition request. Ex: If a person is extradited for a
financial crime, they cannot be charged with unrelated offenses (such as drug
trafficking) without further consent from the requested state.
4. Political Offense Exception: Extradition is generally not permitted for crimes deemed to
be of a political nature.
Types of Political Offenses: Treason, sedition, rebellion, or crimes related to political
dissent. Offenses committed in the context of political struggles or protests.
This restriction prevents extradition from being used as a tool to suppress political
opposition. Ex: An individual involved in a political protest against a regime may be protected
from extradition under the political offense exception. Exception: Serious crimes like
terrorism, war crimes, and genocide are typically not considered political offenses and are
exempt from this rule.
5. Non-Refoulement and Risk of Torture or Inhuman Treatment: Extradition is
prohibited if the individual risks being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading
treatment, or unfair trial in the requesting state.
Legal Basis: UN Convention Against Torture (Article 3) prohibits extradition to a state
where the individual is at risk of torture. International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR): States must ensure the individual's rights are respected.
Protects the fundamental human rights of the individual, ensuring that extradition is not used
to violate international norms. Ex: A person facing the death penalty or torture in the
requesting country might be granted asylum or protection from extradition.
6. Prohibition Against Extradition for Religious, Ethnic, or Racial Persecution:
Extradition is denied if the individual is likely to face persecution based on race, religion,
ethnicity, nationality, or political opinion. Ex: A journalist facing persecution for their political
opinions in a non-democratic regime might be denied extradition.
7. Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy (Ne Bis in Idem): Extradition is not
allowed if the individual has already been tried and acquitted or convicted for
the same offense in any jurisdiction. Prevents multiple prosecutions for the
same crime. Ex: If a person is acquitted of fraud in one country, they cannot
be extradited to another for the same offense.
8. Statute of Limitations: If the crime is time-barred under the laws of the
requested state or as per the extradition treaty, extradition may be refused.
Recognizes the importance of timely prosecution. Ex: A crime committed
decades ago might be ineligible for extradition if the limitation period has
expired.
9. Fair Trial and Death Penalty Concerns: Extradition may be refused if:
• The requesting state fails to provide assurances of a fair trial.
• The individual faces the death penalty and the requested state prohibits capital
punishment.
Ex: The UK requires guarantees that the death penalty will not be imposed
before extraditing to countries like the U.S.
10. Humanitarian Grounds: Extradition may be denied due to
humanitarian considerations, such as:
• Severe illness or advanced age of the individual.
• The impact on family members or dependents.
Ex: A court might block extradition of a terminally ill person on
compassionate grounds.
11. Absence of an Extradition Treaty: In the absence of a bilateral or
multilateral treaty, states are not obligated to extradite, unless principles
of reciprocity or customary international law apply. Ex: Countries
with no treaty often negotiate case-by-case.
12. Political Influence or Diplomatic Relations: Extradition may be
blocked if it jeopardizes diplomatic relations or is perceived as politically
motivated. Ex: A requested state may reject extradition of a high-profile
individual if it views the request as driven by political vendettas.
13. Lack of Evidentiary Support: The requesting state must provide
sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or meet probable
cause standards, depending on the treaty. Ex: A request lacking
concrete evidence may be rejected by the requested state’s judiciary.
 The European Convention on Extradition
The European Convention on Extradition is a multilateral treaty that governs
extradition between member states of the Council of Europe. It sets out the
conditions and procedures for the extradition of individuals accused or convicted of
crimes.
Main Provisions of the Convention:
• Dual Criminality: Extradition is generally granted only for offenses that are
criminalized in both the requesting and the requested state.
• Political Offense Exception: Extradition may be refused for political offenses.
• Non-Refoulement: States are prohibited from extraditing individuals to countries
where they face the risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment.
• Human Rights Safeguards: The Convention includes safeguards to protect the
rights of the individual being extradited, such as the right to legal representation
and the right to challenge the extradition decision.
• The European Convention on Extradition has played a significant role in
promoting international cooperation in criminal matters and ensuring that
individuals are held accountable for their actions, regardless of where they flee.
 India's Extradition treaties
• India has extradition treaties with various countries and international
organizations, including regional groups such as SAARC (South Asian Association
for Regional Cooperation), as well as individual countries like the United States,
United Kingdom, and several others.
• These treaties govern the procedures for extraditing individuals accused of or
convicted for serious criminal offenses, ensuring cooperation between India and
other nations in addressing transnational crime.
1. India-South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC):
SAARC is a regional organization that comprises eight South Asian countries,
including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri
Lanka. The aim of SAARC is to promote regional cooperation on various issues,
including economic and social development, and security matters.
• The SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism (1987) is an
agreement aimed at enhancing regional cooperation on countering terrorism and
providing mechanisms for extradition related to terrorism-related offenses.
• The SAARC Convention on Extradition (1990) also facilitates extradition among
member states, aiming to reduce crimes such as drug trafficking, terrorism, and
organized crime. India is a signatory to this convention.
2. India-United States Extradition Treaty: The India-United States Extradition Treaty 1999:
Came into force in 2001. This treaty is considered one of the most comprehensive and important
bilateral extradition agreements India has, particularly for combating transnational crimes.
• The treaty covers a wide range of criminal offenses, including murder, fraud, drug trafficking,
terrorism, and money laundering. The dual criminality principle applies: the offense for which the
individual is sought must be recognized as a crime in both countries. Extradition of nationals is
allowed, provided the offense is serious and covered by the treaty. Certain political offenses (e.g.,
acts of political protest, sedition) are exempted from extradition, though terrorism is not considered
a political offense. Death penalty: If the requesting country imposes the death penalty, the
requested country may refuse extradition unless assurances are given that the death penalty will not
be imposed or executed. Terrorism and organized crime are among the categories of crime for
which extradition requests are frequently made.

3. India-United Kingdom Extradition Treaty: India and the United Kingdom signed an extradition
treaty in 1992, which came into force in 1993.
• The treaty allows both countries to request the extradition of individuals wanted for serious criminal
offenses, including terrorism, drug trafficking, murder, and fraud. Extradition of nationals: The
treaty allows the extradition of nationals, which is an important provision, especially given India’s
general policy of not extraditing its own nationals. The dual criminality principle applies, meaning
the offense must be a crime in both the requesting and requested countries. Certain political
offenses are excluded from extradition under this treaty. Terrorism, however, is not considered a
political offense under the treaty and is extraditable. The treaty also includes provisions for
procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the person being extradited.
• 4. Extradition Treaties with Other Countries: In addition to the SAARC, US, and UK, India has
extradition agreements with many other countries, each tailored to the specific bilateral relations
and legal frameworks. Some notable examples include:
• India-Australia Extradition Treaty: Signed: 2008 Covers serious crimes such as murder, drug
trafficking, sexual offenses, and terrorism. It also includes provisions for the extradition of
nationals under certain conditions.
• India-Canada Extradition Treaty: Signed: 1987 : Similar to the India-US and India-UK treaties, it
applies the principle of dual criminality and covers a broad range of offenses, including terrorism
and organized crime. The treaty also includes protections for political offenses and allows the
requesting state to withdraw an extradition request.
• India-Germany Extradition Treaty Signed: 2001: Covers a wide range of crimes, including
corruption, money laundering, terrorism, and fraud. The treaty allows extradition of nationals
under certain conditions, and death penalty cases are exempt.
• India-South Africa Extradition Treaty Signed: 1997: Focuses on terrorism, drug trafficking, and
organized crime. It allows extradition of nationals, and the treaty includes provisions to protect
human rights during the extradition process.
• India-France Extradition Treaty Signed: 2008: The treaty includes a wide range of crimes,
including terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, and corruption. Extradition requests are
evaluated based on dual criminality and the severity of the crime.
• India-Singapore Extradition Treaty Signed: 2005: Covers crimes such as fraud, drug trafficking,
and terrorism, and facilitates the extradition of nationals under certain conditions.
• India-Dubai (UAE) Extradition Treaty Signed: 1999: Covers serious offenses like fraud,
terrorism, drug trafficking, and embezzlement. It also includes provisions for the extradition of
nationals and safeguards for human rights.
 Land Mark Cases:
1. United States v. Rauscher (1886): In this case, the U.S. sought to extradite a British national (Rauscher) for the
crime of fraud. The extradition was based on an extradition treaty between the U.S. and the UK, but the British
government argued that the treaty’s provisions on the offense did not cover the specific crime Rauscher was
charged with.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the principle of dual criminality (the requirement that the alleged crime be
recognized as a criminal offense in both the requesting and requested countries) must be respected. Since the
offense did not fall under the treaty provisions, the U.S. was required to release Rauscher. This case reinforced
the dual criminality rule and emphasized the need for clear treaty language when defining the scope of
extraditable offenses.
2. Ex parte Reggiani (1906) Reggiani, an Italian national, was accused of a crime in Italy. The British authorities
were asked to extradite him under the terms of a treaty between the UK and Italy, but Reggiani argued that, as an
Italian citizen, he could not be extradited to Italy. The House of Lords held that the UK had a right to extradite its
nationals, even though national laws sometimes prevented extradition of citizens. This case clarified that a
country’s extradition treaty could override domestic legal provisions barring the extradition of nationals. This
case led to the broader acceptance of the principle that nationals could be extradited if there were treaty
provisions or reciprocal arrangements in place, despite domestic laws protecting citizens from extradition.
3. The United States v. Noriega (1990): Manuel Noriega, the former military dictator of Panama, was arrested by
U.S. authorities after being removed from power. The U.S. sought to extradite him from Panama for charges of
drug trafficking and money laundering. Noriega argued that the charges were politically motivated, claiming the
U.S. was using the extradition process to prosecute him for political reasons. The U.S. court ruled in favor of
extradition, stating that the political offense exception did not apply to charges of drug trafficking, as these were
considered ordinary criminal offenses, not political in nature. This case reinforced the idea that the political
offense exception would not apply to serious non-political crimes like drug trafficking, highlighting that such
offenses could lead to extradition even if the individual argued that the charges were politically motivated.
 The Savarkar Case (Extradition of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar)
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was one of the leading figures in the Indian independence movement, particularly
known for his advocacy of revolutionary methods to end British colonial rule. He was accused of conspiring in the
assassination of a British official, which led to his arrest and eventual imprisonment in Andaman Cellular Jail
for several years. After being released from prison in 1924, Savarkar was exiled to the United Kingdom and was
later involved in efforts to promote anti-colonial activities abroad. He was accused of continuing to conspire against
the British Empire while in London, and the British authorities sought to extradite him from France, where he had
moved for a brief period.
The French Court of Appeals ruled against the extradition of Vinayak Savarkar. The court held that the alleged
offenses were political, and hence, Savarkar could not be extradited to the UK. The ruling was based on the
political offense exception that typically applies to acts of resistance against foreign rule or occupation, especially
during a period of national liberation.
• Legal Issues in the Extradition Proceedings: The British government sought Savarkar's extradition under the
terms of the extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and France. At the time, France was a neutral
territory for Savarkar, as he had been granted asylum there.
• Political Offense Exception:
• Dual Criminality:
• Extradition Procedure: The formalities of extradition law and the procedural aspects of how and whether
Savarkar could be surrendered to the British authorities were debated in French courts. The case became a test
of international law in terms of extradition procedures, particularly involving individuals accused of politically
motivated crimes.
 The Ram Babu Saxena Extradition Case
Ram Babu Saxena was an Indian national who, in the early 1990s, was accused of embezzling a
large sum of money from a financial institution in India. Saxena fled to the United Kingdom to avoid
prosecution. India sought his extradition from the UK to face charges related to the embezzlement and
fraud. The case became complex due to issues such as the application of the dual criminality rule,
whether the offense was extraditable under the terms of the treaty,
•Legal Issues in the Extradition
• Dual Criminality:
• Extradition Treaty:.
• Political Offense Exception
• Human Rights Concerns. Ruling and Impact: Extradition Granted: Despite the concerns about
treatment and the potential risks involved, the UK High Court ruled in favor of Saxena's extradition
to India. The court found that the alleged offenses were extraditable under the extradition treaty
and that the dual criminality principle was satisfied. The court also dismissed the argument that
Saxena would face inhumane treatment in India, as the Indian legal system had made significant
reforms, and the possibility of torture or unfair trial did not warrant the denial of extradition in this
case.
 C.G. Menon Extradition Case
C.G. Menon, an Indian national, was accused of fraud and embezzlement. He fled to the
United States to avoid prosecution in India. The Indian authorities requested his extradition
to face charges under Indian law. In the case of Menon, India was attempting to secure his
return to face legal proceedings. The key legal issue in this case was whether dual
criminality applied to the charges against Menon, as well as whether India’s extradition
treaty with the United States could allow the extradition of its nationals for criminal
charges.
• Legal Issues in the Extradition Process:
Dual Criminality, Extradition of Nationals, Extradition Treaty, Human Rights Concerns
• The charges against Menon were recognized as criminal offenses in both India and the
U.S. The U.S. courts found that the India-U.S. extradition treaty allowed for the
extradition of nationals under certain circumstances. The U.S. legal system determined
that Menon’s case did not involve any human rights violations or political offenses that
would prevent his extradition.
• As a result, Menon was extradited to India to face the charges of fraud and
embezzlement. The case reinforced the notion that dual criminality and adherence to
treaty provisions play a significant role in extradition decisions.
 The Mobarak Ali Ahmad Extradition Case
Mobarak Ali Ahmad was an Indian national who had been involved in criminal activities, including being accused
of participating in a conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism in India. He was allegedly part of a group of
individuals responsible for organizing terrorist acts in India, and after the execution of the alleged crimes, he fled to
the United Kingdom to avoid arrest and prosecution.
•The Indian authorities, after gathering sufficient evidence against Ahmad, requested his extradition from the UK to
face charges related to his involvement in the terrorist conspiracy. India contended that his extradition was
essential for bringing him to justice for his crimes in India.
•The case became significant because it involved key issues such as the extradition of nationals, the political
offense exception, and the balance between criminal justice and human rights concerns, including whether
Ahmad would face inhumane treatment or torture if he were extradited.
• Key Legal Issues in the Extradition Case, Extradition of Nationals. Political Offense Exception, Dual
Criminality, Human Rights Concerns:
• Ruling and Outcome In the Mobarak Ali Ahmad Case, the UK courts ruled in favor of extraditing Ahmad to
India to face charges related to his involvement in terrorism
Legal Significance and Impact:
Extradition of Nationals: The India-UK extradition treaty served as a model for other such treaties, showing that
exceptions exist in extradition agreements that allow for the extradition of nationals involved in serious crimes.
• Political Offense Exception: The case also clarified the limits of the political offense exception in extradition
law. It was determined that terrorism is a criminal offense and not a political one and Human Rights
Considerations
 Dharam Teja Extradition Case
Dharam Teja was an individual accused of committing serious criminal offenses in India,
specifically related to fraud and embezzlement. He fled to the United Kingdom to avoid
prosecution in India. The Indian authorities, having gathered sufficient evidence, made a
formal request to the UK for his extradition so that he could stand trial in India for his alleged
crimes.
Outcome: The UK Court granted the extradition request from India, ruling that the offenses
for which Dharam Teja was wanted were extraditable under the terms of the India-UK
extradition treaty. The court also rejected any human rights concerns, finding that there
was no credible evidence that Teja would face torture or inhumane conditions in India.
Thus, he was extradited to India to stand trial.
Sucha Singh Extradition Case
• Sucha Singh was an individual involved in a terrorist attack in India. After the attack, he
fled to Canada and lived there for several years. The Indian authorities, after collecting
evidence against Singh for his involvement in the terrorist activities, sought his extradition
from Canada to face charges of terrorism under Indian law.
• Outcome: The Canadian Court ruled in favor of extraditing Sucha Singh to India to face
the charges of terrorism. The court concluded that the offenses he was accused of were
serious enough to warrant extradition, and the political offense exception did not apply.
Sucha Singh was extradited to India and faced trial for his role in the terrorist attacks
 Extradition of Abu Salem
The extradition of Abu Salem is one of the most high-profile cases in India’s extradition history,
involving extradition from Portugal to India. Abu Salem, whose full name is Abu Salem Abdul
Qayoom, is a notorious underworld figure and terrorist. He was involved in several terrorist
activities, including the 1993 Bombay bombings over 250 people were killed and more than 700
injured and organized crime. His extradition became a subject of significant legal and diplomatic
attention due to his crimes and the complexities surrounding the extradition process.
• Extradition Process: Abu Salem’s extradition from Portugal to India was a prolonged legal battle,
involving complex issues related to international law, human rights, and the nature of his crimes.
• Arrest in Portugal: In 2002, Abu Salem was arrested in Lisbon, Portugal. The arrest was made in
relation to an Interpol Red Notice and India's extradition request for his role in the 1993 Bombay
bombings and other serious crimes. Portugal initially detained him under European Union laws,
which allowed the EU to consider extradition requests on a case-by-case basis.
• Final Extradition Ruling: After several years of legal proceedings, the Portuguese Supreme Court
ruled in 2005 that Abu Salem could be extradited to India, but only on the condition that he would
not face the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole. The Indian government provided
these assurances, guaranteeing that Salem would face a fair trial in India, and would not be
subjected to harsh penalties beyond what Portuguese law allowed.
• Extradition to India: In 2005, Abu Salem was extradited from Portugal to India after the Portuguese
Supreme Court’s decision. He was handed over to Indian authorities, and the extradition process was
completed successfully after a lengthy legal battle
Abu Salem's Trial in India
• After being extradited to India, Abu Salem was charged with multiple crimes,
including his involvement in the 1993 Bombay bombings. He was tried in various
Indian courts for: Terrorism, Murder, Kidnapping, Conspiracy, Organized crime.
• Impact and Significance of the Abu Salem Extradition
• The extradition of Abu Salem marked a milestone in India’s efforts to bring
fugitives to justice, especially in cases involving terrorism and organized crime. The
case set a precedent for the handling of extraditions involving nationals and
complex legal challenges, particularly the death penalty, human rights concerns,
and international cooperation in criminal matters.
• International Cooperation: It highlighted the importance of international
cooperation in combating cross-border terrorism and organized crime.
• Human Rights Safeguards: It also underscored the need to provide assurances
regarding the treatment of individuals being extradited, especially in cases
involving the death penalty or life imprisonment.
• Legal Framework for Extradition: The case also emphasized the role of extradition
treaties in facilitating cooperation between countries, even in complex cases
involving nationals, political offenses, and serious crimes.
 Vijay Mallya Case
The extradition of Vijay Mallya, the Indian businessman and former Member of Parliament who is
wanted for financial crimes, particularly for the alleged fraud and money laundering related to his now-
defunct airline Kingfisher Airlines, is one of the most high-profile extradition cases in India. Mallya is
accused of defaulting on loans worth over ₹9,000 crores (approximately $1.3 billion) taken from various
Indian banks, and is facing charges of financial crimes, money laundering, and embezzlement.
In 2016, Mallya left India and moved to the United Kingdom, allegedly fleeing from legal action in India.
This triggered efforts by Indian authorities to have him extradited to face trial for the criminal charges
against him.
Initial Allegations and Charges: Mallya was accused of taking loans from Indian banks to fund his airline
and other ventures. accusations of fraud, money laundering, and financial mismanagement. The Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) in India filed criminal charges against
him. The CBI accused him of cheating and conspiracy.
Indian Extradition Request: India sent a formal extradition request to the UK for Mallya's return to stand
trial. The extradition request was based on the serious charges of financial crimes, including fraud,
money laundering, and the default of loans. Basing on Extradition Treaty between India and the United
Kingdom.
Arrest and Bail: Mallya was arrested in the UK in April 2017 following India's extradition request. He was
granted bail but was ordered to remain in the UK while the extradition proceedings continued. Extradition
Hearing: The first hearings for Mallya’s extradition took place in 2017, and the case went through various
stages in UK courts.
Key Legal Developments in the Extradition Case
• Extradition Hearing in 2018:
• In December 2018, a UK Westminster Magistrates’ Court judge ruled in favor of Mallya’s
extradition to India. The court stated that there was sufficient evidence for the charges of
money laundering, fraud, and cheating and that Mallya could be prosecuted in India.
• The court also found that the charges against Mallya were not politically motivated and that the
Indian justice system would provide him with a fair trial.
• Appeal Process:
• Vijay Mallya appealed the extradition order in the UK High Court in 2019, challenging the
decision on various grounds. He argued that his human rights would be violated if he was
extradited to India, particularly regarding his treatment in Indian prisons and the potential for a
lengthy trial.
• The UK High Court agreed to hear Mallya's appeal but stated that the extradition decision made
by the Westminster Magistrates' Court was legally sound.
• Appeal Rejected:
• In December 2019, the UK High Court rejected Mallya’s appeal, ruling that there was no legal
reason to block his extradition. The court maintained that Mallya was likely to face a fair trial in
India and would not be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment in Indian prisons.
• However, despite the court ruling in favor of the extradition, Mallya still had the option to
appeal to the UK Supreme Court, which could delay the process further
Mallya’s Current Legal Status and Appeal
• Ongoing Legal Proceedings: As of now, Mallya is still fighting the extradition in the UK’s
Supreme Court. While the lower courts have ruled in favor of his extradition, the Supreme
Court has yet to make a final ruling on the matter.
• Bail Conditions: Mallya remains out on bail in the UK, under the condition that he does not
leave the country while the case is ongoing. He has also made attempts to settle his
financial obligations with Indian banks through negotiations, but the criminal cases against
him continue to proceed.
• Public Perception: Mallya remains a controversial figure in India, with many seeing his
case as a symbol of the failure of the Indian financial system to hold powerful individuals
accountable for their actions. There have been calls for more stringent measures to recover
the defaulted loans and ensure justice for the victims of his alleged crimes.
Legal Challenges in the Extradition of Vijay Mallya
• Political Offense Exemption: Mallya attempted to argue that the charges against him were
politically motivated, which could have led to an exemption from extradition under
international law. However, the UK courts rejected this argument, stating that the charges
against him were financial in nature and not political.
• Human Rights Concerns: Mallya raised concerns about his treatment in Indian prisons,
particularly regarding overcrowding and the conditions of detention. However, the UK courts
determined that there were sufficient safeguards to ensure his fair treatment in India.
• Delay Tactics: Mallya’s legal team has used various tactics to delay the extradition
process, including appealing decisions at different stages. These delays have prolonged
the legal battle and provided Mallya with additional time to negotiate with the Indian
government and the banks regarding his financial liabilities.
Asylum
 Introduction:
• Asylum is a form of protection granted by a state to a foreign national who has fled
their home country to escape persecution or serious human rights abuses.
• It provides a safe haven for individuals who cannot return to their home countries
due to fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion,
or membership in a particular social group.
• It is a key principle in international law designed to safeguard human rights and
ensure protection for those in need.

Definition of Asylum: Asylum involves providing protection to an individual within

the territory or jurisdiction of a state other than their own, primarily due to persecution
or fear of persecution.
Elements of asylum include:
• Non-Refoulement: Ensuring that individuals are not returned to a place where they
face threats to their life or freedom.
• Protection from Persecution: Based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion,
or membership in a particular social group.
• Refugee Status: Once granted asylum, individuals are often recognized as
refugees and are granted certain rights and protections.
Types of Asylum
1. Political Asylum: Granted to individuals persecuted for political beliefs or actions. Often involves dissidents,
journalists, or political activists.
2. Territorial Asylum: Protection offered within the physical territory of a state. Territorial Asylum is further divided
into: Affirmative Asylum: An asylum seeker proactively applies for asylum within a specific timeframe after arriving in
the host country. Defensive Asylum: This is a claim made by an individual who is already in removal proceedings
and seeks asylum as a defense against deportation.
3. Extraterritorial Asylum: Granted outside a state's territory: This form of asylum is granted within diplomatic
missions, consulates, or international organizations.
4. Diplomatic Asylum: Protection offered in diplomatic premises (e.g., embassies) of a state outside its territory.
Example: Asylum granted to Julian Assange by the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Legal Framework for Asylum
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948: Article 14: Recognizes the right to seek and enjoy
asylum from persecution.
• 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol: Defines refugees and outlines the obligations of states to
protect them. A refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution and cannot return to their home
country.
• Regional Instruments: Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention, 1969: Addresses refugees in the
African context. Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, 1984: Applied in Latin America, includes protection from
generalized violence.
• Principle of Non-Refoulement: States cannot return individuals to a country where they face threats to life or
freedom. This principle is binding under customary international law.
 The Process of Seeking Asylum
The process of seeking asylum can be complex and varies from country to country.
1.Arrival in a Host Country: The individual seeking asylum must first reach a country that accepts
asylum claims. This can involve crossing borders legally or illegally.
2.Initial Claim: Upon arrival, the asylum seeker must inform the immigration authorities of their
intention to seek asylum. This is often done at a border crossing or within a designated period after
arrival.
3.Credible Fear Interview: In some countries, asylum seekers undergo a credible fear interview to
determine whether they have a genuine fear of persecution. This is a preliminary screening process
to assess the validity of the claim.
4.Asylum Application: If the asylum seeker passes the credible fear screening, they can formally
apply for asylum. This involves filling out an application form and providing evidence to support
their claim.
5.Asylum Interview: The asylum seeker is interviewed by immigration officials to gather more
information about their background, reasons for seeking asylum, and the persecution they fear.
6.Decision-Making: The asylum application is reviewed by immigration authorities or a specialized
tribunal. The decision can be to grant asylum, deny the claim, or defer the decision.
7.Appeal Process: If the initial decision is negative, the asylum seeker may have the right to appeal
the decision.
8.Waiting Period: The asylum process can be lengthy, and asylum seekers may have to wait for
months or even years for a decision.
Criteria for Granting Asylum:
To be granted asylum, an individual must typically meet the following criteria:
• Persecution or Well-Founded Fear of Persecution: The individual must have
suffered persecution in the past or have a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
• Persecution can take various forms, including physical harm, imprisonment,
torture, or death.
• The persecution must be based on one of the five grounds: race, religion,
nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
• Inability or Unwillingness to Seek Protection from Home Country: The individual
must be unable or unwilling to seek protection from their home country
government.
• This could be due to the government's inability or unwillingness to protect the
individual or due to widespread violence or conflict.
• Outside the Country of Origin: The individual must be outside their country of
origin to seek asylum.
 International Bodies for Asylum
• Several international bodies play a crucial role in protecting refugees and
asylum seekers:
• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):
• The UNHCR is the UN agency responsible for protecting refugees globally.
• It provides assistance and protection to refugees, including legal aid, resettlement, and
humanitarian aid.
• It advocates for the rights of refugees and works with governments to develop refugee
policies.
• European Union Asylum Agency (EUAA):
• The EUAA is responsible for supporting EU countries in managing asylum and
migration.
• It provides experti se and operational support to national authorities.
• It contributes to the development of common asylum standards and procedures.
• International Organization for Migration (IOM):
• The IOM assists governments in managing migration challenges, including forced
displacement and refugee crises.
• It provides humanitarian assistance, resettlement services, and promotes international
cooperation on migration issues.
 Challenges in Asylum Process
• Political Barriers: States may be reluctant to grant asylum due to
diplomatic concerns or domestic political pressures.

• Border Security vs. Protection: Increasing focus on border control often

leads to denial of entry for legitimate asylum-seekers.

• Lengthy Legal Procedures: Prolonged asylum determination processes

leave applicants in uncertain and vulnerable situations.

• Migrant vs. Refugee Distinction: Misclassification of asylum-seekers as

economic migrants undermines their claims.
 Indian Perspective on Asylum
• India, while not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, has a long history
of providing asylum to individuals fleeing persecution.
• Despite the absence of a formal legal framework specifically governing asylum, India's approach is
largely shaped by its constitutional principles, judicial interpretations, and customary practices.
Legal Framework Governing Asylum in India
• No Specific Refugee or Asylum Law:
• India does not have a codified refugee law or a formal policy for asylum-seekers.
• Refugee matters are dealt with under general laws, such as the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the
Indian Passport Act, 1920.
• Constitutional Protections:
• Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which applies to all persons, including
refugees and asylum-seekers.
• Article 14: Provides equality before the law and equal protection under the law.
• Article 51(c): Directs the state to respect international law and treaty obligations.
• Principle of Non-Refoulement: Although India has not ratified the Refugee Convention, its courts
have recognized the principle of non-refoulement as part of customary international law, making
it binding on the state.
• Judicial Precedents: Indian courts have played a pivotal role in upholding refugee rights.
 India’s Approach to Specific Refugee Groups
• India has provided asylum to several refugee groups, demonstrating its humanitarian
commitment. However, its approach has varied depending on political, cultural, and
security considerations.
• Tibetan Refugees (1959): India granted asylum to the 14th Dalai Lama and thousands of
Tibetan refugees after China's invasion of Tibet. Tibetan refugees are issued Registration
Certificates and provided welfare measures, including access to education and
employment.
• Bangladeshi Refugees (1971): During the Bangladesh Liberation War, India hosted
millions of refugees fleeing the conflict. The crisis eventually led to Indian military
intervention, culminating in the creation of Bangladesh.
• Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees (1983–2009): India hosted Tamil refugees fleeing the civil war
in Sri Lanka. Refugee camps were set up in Tamil Nadu, and many were granted access to
education and livelihoods.
• Afghan Refugees: India has hosted Afghan refugees, particularly after the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan (1979) and the Taliban's rise to power (2021). Afghan refugees, mainly
Sikhs and Hindus, have been provided long-term visas and limited welfare support.
• Rohingya Refugees: Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar fled to India due to persecution by
the Myanmar military. The Indian government has taken a cautious approach, citing
security concerns, and has sought to deport some Rohingya refugees, leading to legal
challenges.
 Famous Indian Asylum Cases
The Dalai Lama and Tibetan Refugees (1959): In 1959, following China's military crackdown in Tibet,
the 14th Dalai Lama fled to India with thousands of Tibetan followers. India granted him asylum, allowing
him to establish the Central Tibetan Administration (Tibetan government-in-exile) in Dharamshala,
Himachal Pradesh.
Significance: Marked India’s commitment to humanitarian values despite strained relations with China.
Tibetan refugees in India have been granted long-term residency but are not officially recognized as
"refugees" under Indian law.
Taslima Nasreen (1994) : Taslima Nasreen, a Bangladeshi author and feminist, sought asylum in India
after facing death threats and charges of blasphemy in Bangladesh for her controversial writings. She
was granted temporary shelter but faced opposition and protests from religious groups in India.
Significance: Highlighted India’s willingness to offer refuge to individuals facing persecution for their
freedom of expression. Demonstrated the challenges of balancing domestic political sensitivities with
asylum decisions.
NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996): The Chakma and Hajong communities fled East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh) due to religious persecution and the construction of the Kaptai Dam, which displaced
their villages. They settled in Arunachal Pradesh, but their citizenship and asylum status became
contentious over decades. the Supreme Court of India ruled that Chakma and Hajong refugees were
entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring their right to life and personal liberty.
Significance: Set a precedent for judicial intervention in refugee matters, underscoring the constitutional
protection of non-citizens.
 Case Laws
Colombia v. Peru, 1950, ICJ): Facts: A Peruvian opposition leader, Victor Raúl Haya de
la Torre, sought asylum in the Colombian embassy in Lima, Peru, after being accused of
rebellion. Colombia granted him asylum under the Havana Convention (1928) on
Asylum and requested his safe passage out of Peru.
• Judgment: The ICJ (International Court of Justice) ruled that the right to grant
asylum is not an absolute right of the granting state unless explicitly provided in a
treaty. It stated that Colombia could not unilaterally qualify Haya de la Torre as a
political refugee without Peru's consent.
Soering v. United Kingdom (1989, European Court of Human Rights): Facts: Jens
Soering, a German national, was charged with murder in the United States. The UK
approved his extradition, but Soering argued that he would face the death penalty and
inhumane treatment in the U.S.
• Issue: Whether extradition to the U.S. violated the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment).
• Judgment: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that extradition to a
country where the individual faces inhumane treatment violates the ECHR. The court
blocked Soering's extradition to the U.S. based on the "death row phenomenon"
(mental anguish caused by prolonged confinement under a death sentence).
• Salah Sheekh v. The Netherlands (2007, ECtHR): Facts: Salah Sheekh, a
Somali national from a minority clan, sought asylum in the Netherlands,
claiming persecution in Somalia. The Dutch authorities rejected his
application, arguing that generalized violence in Somalia did not amount to
persecution. Issue: Whether returning him to Somalia violated Article 3 of the
ECHR.
• Judgment: The ECtHR held that returning Salah Sheekh to Somalia would
expose him to a real risk of inhumane treatment due to his minority status
and the widespread violence.
• Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (2012, ECtHR): Facts: Italy intercepted a boat
carrying migrants from Libya and returned them to Libya without processing
their asylum claims. Issue: Whether the interception and return violated non-
refoulement principles and other rights under the ECHR.
• Judgment: The ECtHR ruled against Italy, stating that the principle of non-
refoulement applies even on the high seas. Italy was found to have violated
the migrants' rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.
• Canada v. Singh (1985, Supreme Court of Canada): Facts: A Sikh asylum-seeker
from India was denied refugee status in Canada without an oral hearing. Issue:
Whether the denial violated his right to fundamental justice under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Judgment: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the principles of fundamental
justice require a fair hearing in refugee cases. Refugee claimants are entitled to an
oral hearing to present their case.
• Regina v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport (2004, UK House of Lords):
Facts: Roma asylum-seekers were denied entry at Prague Airport before they could
formally claim asylum in the UK. Issue: Whether the UK violated its obligations under
international refugee law by preemptively denying asylum claims.
Judgment: The House of Lords ruled in favor of the UK, stating that border control
measures outside the country's territory did not constitute a breach of international
refugee law.
• Refugee Appeal No. 74665/03 (New Zealand, 2005): Facts: An Iranian asylum-
seeker claimed persecution based on his conversion to Christianity, which is
punishable by death in Iran. Issue: Whether the conversion amounted to a "well-
founded fear of persecution" under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Judgment: The New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority found that the
asylum-seeker's conversion to Christianity exposed him to persecution in Iran.
DEPORTATION
 Deportation in International Law
• Deportation refers to the removal of a foreign national from the
territory of a state, usually due to violations of immigration laws,
criminal activities, or other threats to national security.
• It is an exercise of a state’s sovereign right to control its borders and
manage the presence of non-citizens.
• Deportation involves the legal process by which a state expels a
foreigner who has violated its laws or whose presence is deemed
undesirable.
• This is distinct from extradition, which involves handing over an
individual to another state for prosecution or punishment.
Principles of Deportation Under International Law
• Sovereign Right to Deportation:
• States have the authority to regulate the entry, residence, and removal of foreign nationals.
• This right is recognized in international law but is subject to restrictions, particularly under
human rights law.
• Non-Refoulement:
• A cornerstone principle in international refugee law, non-refoulement prohibits deportation to a
country where the individual may face threats of persecution, torture, or other inhumane
treatment.
• Enshrined in:
• Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
• Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984: Article 3 forbids returning individuals to countries where they
might face torture.
• Prohibition of Arbitrary Expulsion:
• International instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), prohibit arbitrary deportation.
• ICCPR Article 13: Guarantees that an individual lawfully in the country shall not be expelled
except as per law and after a fair hearing.
• Human Rights Protections:
• Deportation must respect the individual's fundamental rights, such as the right to family life,
freedom from discrimination, and the right to due process.
 Grounds for Deportation
1. Violation of Immigration Laws: Illegal Entry: Entering a country without proper documentation, such as
a valid visa or passport, constitutes a breach of immigration laws. Overstaying Visas: Staying beyond the
authorized duration of a visa or permit is a frequent reason for deportation. Working Without
Authorization: Engaging in employment without the necessary work permits or violating the terms of a visa
(e.g., a tourist working while on a visitor visa) can lead to deportation. Failure to Maintain Legal Status:
For instance, international students not meeting academic requirements may lose their visa status, making
them deportable.
2. Criminal Activities: Serious Criminal Offenses: Crimes such as murder, drug trafficking, human
trafficking, terrorism, or violent offenses often lead to deportation, especially if committed after arrival in the
host country. Repeat Minor Offenses: Multiple minor offenses, such as petty theft or public disturbances,
may also result in deportation. Violation of Local Laws: Non-compliance with local laws, such as traffic
violations or public order offenses, may be grounds in certain jurisdictions.
3. Threat to National Security: Involvement in Terrorist Activities: Direct or indirect participation in
terrorism or aiding terrorist groups is a grave ground for deportation. Espionage: Acting as a spy or
conducting activities against the host country’s sovereignty. Association with Prohibited Organizations:
Membership in banned groups, including extremist or insurgent organizations, is often grounds for
expulsion. Hate Speech or Subversion: Activities that incite violence, disrupt public order, or threaten
social harmony.
4. Breach of Public Health and Safety: Contagious Diseases: Entry or continued stay of individuals with
communicable diseases (e.g., tuberculosis or COVID-19) that pose a public health risk may result in
deportation. Public Nuisance: Activities that compromise public health, sanitation, or safety
 Relevant International Instruments
1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol: Protects refugees from deportation to their country of
origin if they face persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a
particular social group.
Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984: Prohibits the deportation of individuals to countries where
they are at risk of torture.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966:
•Article 12: Ensures freedom of movement and protection against forced expulsion.
•Article 13: Provides for a fair hearing before deportation.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):
•Article 3: Prohibits deportation where there is a risk of inhumane or degrading treatment.
•Article 8: Protects the right to private and family life, which can be a defense against deportation.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948:
•Article 9: Prohibits arbitrary expulsion.
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),
1965
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989
• International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of Their Families (ICMW), 1990
• African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), 1981
• Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), 1969
Restrictions and Safeguards Under International Law
Due Process Rights:
•Deportation decisions must be based on transparent legal processes, including:
•The right to be informed of the reasons for deportation.
•The right to a fair hearing and legal representation.
•The right to appeal the decision to an independent body.
Proportionality:
•Deportation must not impose excessive hardship, particularly on families, children,
or vulnerable individuals.
•The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has emphasized proportionality in
several cases.
Protection of Stateless Individuals:
•Stateless persons cannot be deported if no state recognizes them as a citizen.
Non-Deportation of Minors:
•Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989, states must
prioritize the best interests of the child when making deportation decisions.
 Deportation, Extradition and Expulsion
Aspect Deportation Extradition Expulsion

Removal of a
Surrender of a
foreigner from a Forcible removal
person to another
Definition state for legal without formal legal
state for prosecution
violations or proceedings.
or punishment.
undesirability.

Enforcing
Legal obligation Removal for political
immigration laws or
Purpose under treaties or or administrative
addressing security
bilateral agreements. reasons.
concerns.
Domestic laws and International treaties Arbitrary or political
Based on administrative and extradition considerations.
decisions. agreements.
 Landmark Cases on Deportation
•Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) – European Court of Human
Rights: The UK was prohibited from extraditing a German citizen to the
United States due to the risk of inhumane treatment on death row,
establishing the principle of non-refoulement under the ECHR.

•Chahal v. United Kingdom (1996) – European Court of Human

Rights: The Court ruled that a Sikh activist could not be deported to
India due to the risk of torture, reinforcing non-refoulement.

•Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (2012): Italy's practice of intercepting

and deporting migrants to Libya without assessing their asylum claims
was found to violate the ECHR.
 Indian Perspective on Deportation
• India's approach to deportation is shaped by its
constitutional framework, domestic laws, and international
obligations.
• As a sovereign state, India retains the right to deport foreign
nationals who violate its laws, but this power is exercised
within the bounds of procedural safeguards and human
rights considerations.
• Deportation is primarily governed by domestic legislation,
while international instruments and evolving jurisprudence
influence the practice.
 Legal Framework for Deportation in India
•The Constitution of India:
Article 19: Grants certain rights to citizens but not to foreign nationals, allowing the state to
regulate the presence of foreigners.
Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, applicable to all individuals (citizens
and non-citizens). This has been invoked to challenge deportation orders in certain cases.
•The Foreigners Act, 1946: Empowers the government to regulate the entry, presence, and
exit of foreigners in India. The government can issue deportation orders if a foreigner is
found violating visa rules, overstaying, or engaging in unlawful activities. Provides for
detention and deportation of individuals deemed a threat to national security.
•The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920: Regulates the entry of foreigners into India
and imposes penalties for illegal entry or residence.
•The Citizenship Act, 1955(2019 Amendment Act): Defines the criteria for citizenship in
India and provisions for the deportation of individuals falsely claiming citizenship.
•Extradition Act, 1962: While primarily focused on extradition, it indirectly impacts
deportation when individuals facing criminal charges in other countries are deported in the
absence of an extradition treaty.
 Landmark Cases
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996):
•The Supreme Court ruled against the forced eviction of Chakma and Hajong
refugees in Arunachal Pradesh, emphasizing the protection of life and liberty
under Article 21.
Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail (1955):
•The Supreme Court held that the government has the authority to deport
foreigners under the Foreigners Act, 1946, as a matter of sovereign right.
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India (2021):
•A plea was filed in the Supreme Court to stop the deportation of Rohingya
refugees to Myanmar. The Court acknowledged India’s obligations under Article
21 but refrained from issuing a stay on deportations.