VERHOEVEN, MARIE-EMMANUELLE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

p. 100 Copy page pinpoint

A 129. We are, therefore, in agreement with the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that on the basis of a request made by Chile as contained in the Note Verbale of 22"ct September, 2015 the petitioner could have been validly detained and placed under provisional arrest under Section 34-B of the Act, on a reciprocal basis, Extradition Treaty or no Extradition Treaty between India and Chile. The further B requirement (in terms ofSection 34-B of the Act) would however be for Chile to make a formal request for extraditing the petitioner from India on the basis of credible evidence against her of having committed an extradition offence punishable both in Chile as well as in India. Subsidiary issues c

130. It was also submitted by learned counsel that the Government oflndia had not applied its mind at all when the Act was made applicable to the Republic of Chile. This argument is also without any basis and learned counsel has not pointed out or suggested any general or specific procedure that the Government of India should follow for making the D Act applicable to a foreign State, except the issuance of a notified order under Section 3(1) of the Act. Admittedly, such a notified order has been issued in respect of the Republic of Chile and the natural presumption is that this official act has been done after due application of mind. In any event, whether the Extradition Act is to be made applicable to a E foreign State or not is entirely a political decision to be taken by the Government oflndia and there must be judicial abstinence in this regard. We have no doubt that this is an area that cannot be the subject matter ofjudicial review.

131. It was also submitted that the High Court ought not to have given liberty to the Government oflndia to once again initiate the process of extradition. The submission is misplaced. It is really for the Republic of Chile to decide whether it would like to have the petitioner extradited or not. The Government oflndia has no say in the matter. The Republic of Chile decided to renew its request for the extradition of the petitioner in November, 2015. The Government oflndia chose not to ignore that request but to act upon it. That is a political or diplomatic decision that the Government of India took. The petitioner has no say in the matter and judicial abstinence on such an issue prevents us from commenting on the decision. Dissemination of information

H 132. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner commented on the

VERHOEVEN, MARIE-EMMANUELLE v. UNION OF INDIA 101 [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

dissemination of information by the Ministry of External Affairs through its official website. It was pointed out that the official website informs everybody that India had entered an extradition treaty with Chile in 2015. Learned counsel relied on this information to contend that the Government oflndia does not recognize the Extradition Treaty of 1897 and there is no extradition treaty entered into with Chi le in 2015. Consequently, the entire proceedings against the petitioner are vitiated.

133. It is extremely unfortunate that the official website of the Ministry of External Affairs gives misleading information not only to Indians but also to the world at large. The learned Additional Solicitor General was quite upset at the misleading information given on the official website and informed us that he had given a piece of his mind to the c concerned officials in the Ministry. Whether amends have been made by the Ministry of External Affairs and whether the.advice given by the learned Additional Solicitor General has been taken by the Ministry of External Affairs in the right spirit or not does not concern us. All that we need say is that in this day and age wht:n communication and communication technology are so important, the Ministry of External Affairs has to be far more careful in the information that it disseminates to the world at large.

134. We may also note the relaxed attitude of the Ministry of External Affairs as evidenced by the manner in which the notified order dated 28 1h April, 2015 was drafted by it. The text of the notified order leaves much to be desired. We have already pointed out three errors in the notified order, none of which should have occurred at al I. The errors only show the laid-back manner in which the Ministry of External Affairs conducts its internal affairs. To make matters worse, the corrigendum gazetted on l J 1h August, 2015 fails to correct the error in the earlier notified order where the Extradition Act, 1962 is referred to as the Indian Extradition Act, 1962. It is time that the Ministry of External Affairs gets over the colonial hangover. Though the error is minor and not substantive, it should not have been there at all. We need say nothing more on this subject except to be optimistic and hope that the Ministry of External G Affairs of the Government oflndia takes matters oflaw far more seriously than is evident from the material on record before us.

135. It is time to realize that India is now a significant and important player in the world stage. Very little attention appears to have been paid to affairs of international law as is evident from the manner in which the H

p. 102 Copy page pinpoint

A affidavits have been drafted and filed by the Government of India not only in the Delhi High Court but also in this Court. Most of the relevant material handed over to us in Court by the learned Additional Solicitor General did not form a part of any affidavit filed by the Government of India. True, there is no dispute about the authenticity of the material handed over to us in Court but that is not the issue. What is in issue is the B nonchalant response of the Government oflndia on a matter concerning the liberty of an individual, even if that individual happens to be a foreign national who is in India. Conclusion

c 136. On the basis of the material before us, we hold that there is a binding extradition treaty between India and Chile and that the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1962 (other than Chapter Ill thereof) are applicable to the Republic of Chile in respect of the offences specified in the Extradition Treaty.

D 137. The extradition proceedings pertaining to the petitioner are pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the merits of the controversy pending before him and have confined our consideration only to the existence or otherwise of the Extradition Treaty between India and Chile. The learned Magistrate should decide E on the extradition of the petitioner on the merits of the case and the evidence before him. Any observations incidentally made by us on the merits of the extradition requisition will not bind the learned Magistrate for the purposes of the final outcome of the proceedings.

138. The writ petition and the criminal appeal are dismissed. No F costs. Devika Gujral Writ petition and appeal dismissed.