MEA breaks silence on UK HC's verdict on Nirav Modi, reiterates commitment on extradition

On Thursday, the Ministry of External Affairs gave its first reaction to the UK High Court's judgment allowing fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi to appeal against extradition to India. Addressing a press briefing, MEA official spokesperson Arindam Bagchi pointed out that the HC has allowed Modi to file an appeal only on two grounds while rejecting three other contentions raised by the defence. Moreover, he reiterated the Centre's commitment to repatriate all economic fugitives to India. He has been accused of being the principal beneficiary of the fraudulent issuance of letters of undertaking as part of a conspiracy to defraud the Punjab National Bank to the extent of Rs 13,570 crore.

MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi remarked, "This week itself, the High Court gave a verdict. The High Court has rejected three points. The appeal has been allowed but only on two limited grounds. We will continue the legal proceedings from our end. It remains our endeavour to get back all economic fugitives to India so that they can face the justice system here." Since his arrest on March 19, 2019, the PNB scam accused has been languishing in the Wandsworth Prison after being repeatedly denied bail.

Legal proceedings in Nirav Modi case

Pronouncing the extradition verdict on February 25, District Judge Samuel Goozee of the  Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruled that a prima facie case of money laundering is established. Noting that the Letters of Understanding had been issued between 2011 and 2017 without being entered in the CBS system of the bank to mislead authorities, he did not accept that the accused was involved in a legitimate business. Expressing satisfaction that Nirav Modi could be convicted, the judge also rejected other arguments made by the defence counsel. 

Dismissing concerns about Nirav Modi's mental health, it contradicted the allegation of overcrowded prisons in India. Maintaining that Barrack 12 of Arthur Road Jail is far more spacious than the current prison where he is being held, the judge made it clear that the Indian government doesn't need to provide further details of healthcare that will be provided to the accused. Moreover, the judge said that there is no evidence to suggest that the fugitive diamond merchant will not receive justice if he is extradited to India. During the hearing of his plea in the UK HC, his legal team contended that such an eventuality will severely impact his mental health thereby increasing the risk of suicide.

Justice Martin Chamberlain of the HC stated that he is granting permission to appeal on Grounds 3 and 4 apart from Section 91 of the UK's Criminal Justice Act. Grounds 3 and 4 pertain to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights which protects a person from extradition protects if the court believes that he/she would face torture, degrading or inhuman treatment in the said nation. On the other hand, Section 91 of the UK's Criminal Justice Act stipulates that the court has to consider the physical and mental condition of an individual and if it would be unjust to extradite him/her.