Delhi High Court seeks responses on Christian Michel’s challenge to India–UAE extradition treaty in AgustaWestland case

The Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Central government on Monday regarding a petition filed by Christian Michel. Michel, an accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter case, is seeking a declaration that the extradition treaty between India and the UAE cannot override the Indian Extradition Act, 1962.

Through his counsel, Advocate Aljo K. Joseph, Michel contended that the bilateral treaty is subordinate to a statute enacted by the Indian Parliament and, therefore, cannot be invoked to justify legal proceedings that extend beyond what the legislation permits.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain sought formal responses from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The Bench also clarified that the respondents were at liberty to raise any objections regarding the maintainability of the petition.

The plea highlights that the Extradition Act, specifically Section 21, provides a statutory safeguard stating that an extradited individual may not be tried for offences other than those for which he was originally extradited.

*********************

FAQs

• Christian Michel is currently lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail in the estimated ₹3,600 crore AgustaWestland money laundering case.

• Michel was extradited from Dubai in December 2018 and was subsequently arrested by the CBI and ED.

• CBI chargesheet claims an estimated loss of about ₹2,666 crore to the exchequer due to the VVIP chopper deal.

• The AgustaWestland deal was signed in February 2010 for the supply of VVIP choppers worth 556.262 million euros.
• ED chargesheet filed against Michel in June 2016 alleges he received about ₹225 crore in kickbacks from AgustaWestland.

The petition further asserts that the introduction of new charges, including offences under Section 467 of the IPC, violates the Doctrine of Speciality and directly conflicts with the extradition decree issued by the UAE authorities.

Michel’s lawyer argued that parliamentary law must prevail in the event of any conflict with a treaty, citing binding Supreme Court precedents, such as Gramophone Company of India Ltd. vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Daya Singh Lahoria vs. Union of India.

Michel additionally claims unlawful detention, maintaining that he has already served the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the offences listed in the initial charge sheet and the extradition decree. He alleged that his continued custody amounts to being held as a “judicial hostage”, in violation of Articles 21, 245 and 253 of the Constitution.

The petition also contends that the CBI and ED charge sheets have failed to establish any material evidence of cheating, money laundering or financial impropriety. It argues that these supplementary charges lack the authorisation of the extradition decree and therefore cannot be sustained under Indian jurisdiction.

The Bench has listed the matter for its next hearing on 9 January.