New Delhi [India], November 17 : The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to entertain Christian Michel's challenge to a clause of the India-UAE Extradition Treaty, advising him instead to file a fresh and more detailed petition setting out specific consequential reliefs.
Michel, through his lawyer Aljo K Joseph, sought a direction from the Court declaring that Section 21 of the Extradition Act must prevail over the India-UAE Extradition Treaty. He argued that the statutory protections contained in the Act override any conflicting provisions in the bilateral treaty.
He further requested a declaration that no treaty can supersede a law enacted by Parliament, relying on the mandate of Article 245 of the Constitution of India, which upholds the supremacy of parliamentary legislation.
The Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain observed that such a declaration cannot be issued "merely for the asking," and advised the petitioner to file a more comprehensive plea that includes specific consequential reliefs.
However, the Bench permitted Michel to withdraw the petition, with liberty to file a fresh one. Advocate Aljo K Joseph, appearing for Michel, informed the Court that he would submit a revised petition seeking complete and appropriate relief.
Michel, a British national, was extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018, and has remained in custody since. He is alleged to have acted as a middleman in helping helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland secure a VVIP helicopter contract from the then Congress-led Union government.
Plea moved by Michel submitted that there is no law made by the Parliament for the effective implementation of the India-UAE Extradition treaty, contrary to the Extradition Act of 1962. The argument of the prosecution that the India-UAE Extradition treaty will prevail over the Extradition Act, and acceptance given to such submission by the CBI Court violates the basic principle that "the law made by the Parliament is supreme" in the Sovereign country.
For this reason alone, the order passed by the special CBI Court is illegal, and the guarantee of a fair trial and justice assured under the Constitution of India is being violated for the petitioner only because of the fact that he is a foreign national, plea read.
The petition further stated that Michel has already completed the maximum sentence permitted under the extradition decree issued by UAE authorities, and therefore cannot be detained any further. He relies on precedents such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) and Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India (2001) to assert that liberty cannot be curtailed arbitrarily, especially once the maximum permissible imprisonment period has been served.