The Supreme Court today held that there is a binding extradition treaty between India and Chile and rejected the plea of a jailed French woman facing extradition to Chile for her alleged role in the murder of a senator there in 1991.
"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 III thereof) are applicable to the Republic of Chile in respect of the offences specified in the Extradition Treaty," a bench comprising Justices M B Lokur and N V Ramana said.
It directed the magistrate at Patiala House Court, to decide the extradition proceedings pertaining to the petitioner Marie Emmanuelle Verhoeven on merits and material available before him.
Also Read
The bench also pulled up the Centre for its "nonchalant response" on a matter concerning the liberty of an individual and for taking little attention to affairs of international law observing that "it is time to realize that India is now a significant and important player in the world stage."
"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 affidavits have been drafted and filed by the Government of India not only in the Delhi High Court but also in this Court...
"...What is in issue is the nonchalant response of the Government of India on a matter concerning the liberty of an individual, even if that individual happens to be a foreign national who is in India," the bench said.
The apex court also questioned the "relaxed attitude" of Minstry of External Affairs (MEA) in which its notification order of Extradition Act, making the Act applicable to Republic of Chile was drafted and pointed to three errors in it and said that its time that the ministry "gets over the colonial hangover."
"We may also note the relaxed attitude of the Ministry of External Affairs as evidenced by the manner in which the notified order dated 28th 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 all. The errors only show the laid-back manner in which the Ministry of External Affairs conducts its internal affairs," the bench said.
The apex court further said, "To make matters worse, the
corrigendum gazetted on 11th 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 Affairs of the Government of India takes matters of law far more seriously than is evident from the material on record before us," it said.
The court also took exception of the information given by MEA's official website which informs that India had entered an extradition treaty with Chile in 2015, which the counsel for petitioner relied saying India does not recognize the Extradition Treaty of 1897 with Chile.
"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 bench said in its 69-page verdict.
It said that "in this day and age when 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".
The bench rejected the contention of petitioner that Delhi High Court out not to have given liberty to the Centre to once again initiate the process of extradition.
"The Republic of Chile decided to renew its request for the extradition of the petitioner in November, 2015. The Government of India 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," it said.
Marie Emmanuelle in her plea had sought her immediate release and also sought quashing of the extradition request, made on March 24, 2015 by the Government of Chile through the Ministry before the court here.
Verhoeven, arrested on February 16 last year from Uttar Pradesh on the basis of a red corner notice issued against her, is alleged to have participated in a conspiracy leading to the assassination of Chilean Senator Jaime Guzman Errazuriz on April 1, 1991.
