Extradition is a legal process involving the surrender of a criminal suspect or convicted individual by one jurisdiction to another for prosecution or punishment. It is a crucial tool in international law enforcement, facilitating the transfer of individuals accused of crimes across borders.

Extradition helps a country by enabling the enforcement of criminal laws across borders and ensuring that perpetrators of crimes do not evade justice by seeking refuge in other jurisdictions. It serves as a mechanism for international cooperation in combating transnational crimes and upholding the rule of law1. Additionally, extradition treaties play a vital role in facilitating extradition requests between countries and establishing the legal framework for extradition processes.

In Oppenheim's International Law, the expression extradition has been defined as follows: "Extradition is the delivery of an accused or a convicted individual to the State where he/she is accused of or has been convicted of a crime, by the State on whose territory he/she happens for the time to be." According to Black's Law Dictionary2, extradition means: "The surrender by one State or Country to another of an individual accused or convicted of an offense outside its own territory and within the territorial jurisdiction of the other, which, being competent to try and punish him, demands the surrender."

Fundamental Concepts Governing the Legal Process of Extradition:

• Principle of Reciprocity: The principle of reciprocity allows for the enforcement of legal consequences of certain legal relationships when these same consequences are mutually recognized by foreign nations. In the context of international law, reciprocity signifies the entitlement to equal treatment and mutual regard among states.
   
• Principle of Double Criminality: The principle of double criminality stipulates that for an extradition request to be valid, the act for which extradition is sought must be considered a crime in both the requesting and the requested states. In other words, the actions of the fugitive must be criminal under the laws of both the state seeking extradition and the state where the fugitive is currently located. For example, if a person is found guilty of 'perjury' under English Law, but the same actions do not amount to 'perjury' under American Law, then the United States can refuse England's request for his extradition.
   
• Principle of Double Jeopardy: The Principle of Double Jeopardy is a legal concept that protects an individual from being tried or punished more than once for the same offense in the same jurisdiction. This principle is enshrined in many legal systems to ensure fairness and justice. In the context of extradition, this principle means that a person cannot be extradited and prosecuted again for the same offense for which they have already been acquitted or convicted. For instance, if a person is charged for an offense and tried in court, and they have been declared innocent or guilty, they cannot be tried again for the same offense. This principle is also recognized in the Indian Constitution under Article 20(2), which states that "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once."
   
• Principle of Speciality: The Principle of Speciality, also known as the Doctrine of Specialty, is a fundamental concept in extradition law. This principle stipulates that a person who is extradited can be prosecuted or sentenced in the requesting state only in relation to the offenses for which extradition was granted, and not for any other crime committed before extradition took place. This principle is intended to protect persons surrendered in relation to an ordinary criminal charge against later political persecution following their return to the requesting state.
  
  It prevents the requested state from extraditing a person based on false grounds. The Principle of Speciality is laid down in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition 1957. It is also reinforced by the provisions of Article, which requires the requesting state to support its extradition request with an accurate statement of the specific offenses for which extradition is requested. In the context of international law, this principle is closely connected with the presumption of mutual trust between the countries, including in terms of equivalence in safeguarding fundamental human rights. It assists the requested state in exercising its sovereignty from the perspective of international law.

How extradition is done?

1. Extradition Request: The process begins with one sovereign jurisdiction formally requesting another sovereign jurisdiction (known as the "requested state") to surrender a fugitive. If the fugitive is found within the territory of the requested state, they may be arrested and subjected to the extradition process.
2. Review and Evaluation: The requested state evaluates the extradition request, considering factors such as the legality of the request, the nature of the offense, and any applicable treaties or agreements.
3. Arrest and Temporary Detention: If the requested state approves the request, the fugitive is arrested and temporarily detained pending further proceedings.
4. Extradition Hearing: The fugitive appears before a court in the requested state for an extradition hearing. During this hearing, evidence is presented, and legal arguments are made.
5. Ministerial Decision or Judicial Review: The court or relevant authorities decide whether to grant extradition based on the evidence and legal principles. In some cases, the decision rests with the minister or executive authority.
6. Surrender and Transfer: If extradition is approved, the fugitive is surrendered to the requesting state, where they will face prosecution or punishment for the alleged offense.

Case Laws:

• Mohammed Zubair Fauzal Awam v. State (Represented by the Inspector of Police & Another)3; In this particular case, a Sri Lankan Tamilian who was temporarily residing in India claimed that they had proper permission to stay in India. Based on a red alert notice issued by Interpol (New Delhi) due to an arrest warrant from a competent court in Sri Lanka, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 41(1)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the court observed that while the red corner notice allowed the requesting state to make a deportation request or take follow-up actions related to the petitioner's arrest, the formal request for extradition by the Sri Lankan government was still pending. Therefore, the arrest and registration of the FIR under Section 41(1)(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, were deemed improper at that stage.
   
• P. Pushpavathy v. Ministry of External Affairs 4: In this case, it was determined that if a fugitive criminal accused of an extradition offense is arrested based on a legally issued warrant by a Magistrate who was directed by the Government of India to conduct a necessary inquiry, then the resulting detention cannot be considered illegal or unlawful. When the detention is neither illegal nor unlawful, there is no basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
   
• Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra 5: In this case, it was determined that a citizen's fundamental rights should not be disregarded solely because a red corner notice has been issued against them by Interpol. The High Court, considering its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental human right. Therefore, even when local police threaten an Indian citizen with arrest based on the red corner notice, the superior courts in criminal cases have the authority to examine the matter. This examination includes assessing whether the enforcement of the red corner notice is legally justified, especially in light of the provisions of the 1962 Act.
   
• Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra 6,the Supreme Court of India addressed the jurisdiction of criminal courts in the country to try offenses that do not form part of the extradition judgment1. Abu Salem, who was brought to India based on an extradition decree, argued that he could only be tried for the offenses mentioned in that decree1.
   

The court clarified the scope of jurisdiction and the offenses for which he could be prosecuted in India. The Apex Court also held that, the doctrine of speciality is a universally recognised principle of international law and partakes of doctrines of both, double criminality and reciprocity. Section 21 of the 1962 Act incorporates rule of speciality of the international law, it is for this reason that Section 21(a) mentions that an extradited person cannot be tried for offences other than those for which he was surrendered by a Foreign State. It was further held that the rule of specialty is not violated when the extradited person is tried also, for lesser offences' as provided in Section 21(b) of the 1962 Act.

Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India 7, the Apex Court stated as follows: A fugitive criminal brought into this country under an extradition decree can be tried only for the offences mentioned in the extradition decree and for no other offence and the criminal courts of this country will have no jurisdiction to try such fugitive for any other offence.

Reference:

1. Asllani, A. (2013). Extradition as a kind of international cooperation between countries, with special reference to the European convention on extradition and the additional protocols.
   https://doi.org/10.33107/ubt-ic.2013.47
2. See: Black's Law Dictionary, Centennial Edition (1891-1991), Sixth Edition, p. 585
3. 2011 Cri LJ 2975
4. 2013 Cri LJ 4420
5. (2009) 9 SCC 551
6. (2011) 11 SCC 214
7. (2001) 4 SCC 516