The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Christian James Michel, the alleged middleman in the AugustaWestland VVIP chopper deal, which sought to challenge the India–UAE extradition treaty. The petition specifically questioned Section 17 of the treaty, signed in 1999, which allows India to prosecute an extradited individual not only for the offences for which extradition was granted but also for any connected offences.

Background of the Case

Christian Michel was extradited from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to India in December 2018 following a prolonged legal and diplomatic process. He is accused of acting as a middleman in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal, which involved alleged kickbacks and corruption in the procurement of helicopters for the Indian Air Force. Michel faces charges under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, among others.

Following his extradition, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2017 had initially chargesheeted Michel under Sections 8, 9, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. At that time, these provisions carried a maximum sentence of five years. However, subsequent supplementary chargesheets also invoked Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which carries life imprisonment, following amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2018. Michel argued that the invocation of Section 467, long after his initial sentencing, amounted to continued and illegal detention.

Michel’s Legal Arguments

Michel’s counsel, Aljio K Joseph, contended that his client had already served a sentence of five years, in addition to the five years he spent in pre-extradition incarceration in the UAE. He argued that prosecuting Michel for offences beyond those specified in the extradition request violated Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which prohibits the conviction of an extradited individual for any offence other than that for which they were extradited.

The petition challenged the legality of Section 17 of the India–UAE extradition treaty, asserting that it allowed India to expand the scope of prosecution to “connected offences” and thereby subjected Michel to continued detention without lawful justification.

Delhi HC’s Observations

A bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain noted that the India–UAE treaty was not a law enacted by the Indian Parliament and therefore could not be declared ultra vires or unconstitutional by the court. The bench stated:

“Look into the fact that it is not passed by the Parliament. Once it is not yet passed by the Parliament, it is not even a law and it is not to be followed… it’s not a law under the Constitution. Unless it’s not a law, it cannot be declared as ultra vires.”

The court also highlighted that Michel’s petition did not challenge any specific court order or legal proceeding. Without a cause of action or a concrete order being contested, the bench found no basis to entertain the plea. Justice Chaudhary and Justice Jain suggested that Michel could withdraw the petition and file a fresh petition if he wished to challenge a particular order with a consequential relief.

Following this, Michel’s counsel formally withdrew the petition in court.

Current Status of Michel’s Detention

Despite being granted bail by the Supreme Court in the CBI case on February 19, and later in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case by the Delhi High Court on March 4, Michel continues to remain in custody. The trial court, in an August order, refused his release, citing the serious nature of the offences, some of which carry punishment up to life imprisonment. The court observed that given the allegations under Section 467 IPC, which entails life imprisonment, it could not be said that Michel had already undergone the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences.

Extradition Treaty and Section 17

Section 17 of the India–UAE extradition treaty is central to the ongoing legal debate. The clause permits India to prosecute an extradited individual for offences connected to the original charges in the extradition request. This provision is standard in many bilateral extradition treaties to prevent individuals from evading justice by narrowly interpreting the scope of offences.

In Michel’s case, this has allowed Indian authorities to extend charges beyond the initial CBI charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act to include additional IPC offences. The Delhi High Court clarified that since the treaty is an international agreement and not legislation enacted by Parliament, the court lacks jurisdiction to declare it unconstitutional.

Significance of the Ruling

The dismissal of Michel’s PIL underscores the judiciary’s approach to challenges against international treaties. Courts have consistently held that international treaties or agreements not enacted into domestic law cannot be invalidated unless they conflict with the Constitution or statutory law. In this instance, the Delhi High Court reinforced that procedural avenues, such as challenging specific court orders, remain the correct recourse for individuals affected by the treaty’s provisions.

Moreover, the court emphasized the need for a cause of action and consequential relief before entertaining petitions. Michel’s petition, which broadly challenged the treaty without contesting any specific judicial order, was therefore procedurally deficient.

Conclusion

Christian Michel’s attempt to legally challenge the India–UAE extradition treaty has been firmly rejected by the Delhi High Court. While he raised concerns about extended detention and prosecution for connected offences, the court made it clear that international treaties not enacted as domestic law fall outside its purview. Michel remains in custody, facing serious charges related to the AugustaWestland VVIP chopper deal, with trial proceedings ongoing.

The ruling reinforces the principle that individuals extradited under international treaties are subject to prosecution in accordance with the terms of the treaty, and legal challenges must be anchored in specific orders or actionable grievances rather than general objections to international agreements.