The Extradition Act 1962, provides the legislative basis for extradition within the territorial jurisdiction of India. To consolidate and amend the law relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals and to provide for matters connected therewith, or incidental thereto, the Extradition Act of 1962 was enacted. It consolidated the law relating to the extradition of a criminal fugitive from India to foreign states. The Indian Extradition Act, 1962 was substantially modified in 1993 by Act 66 of 1993.
Section 2(d) of Extradition Act 1962 defines an 'Extradition Treaty' as a Treaty, Agreement or Arrangement made by India with a Foreign State, relating to the Extradition of fugitive criminals and includes any treaty, agreement or arrangement relating to the Extradition of fugitive criminals made before the 15th day of August 1947, which extends to and is binding on, India. Extradition treaties are traditionally bilateral in character. Yet most of them seem to embody at least five principles, as endorsed by several judicial pronouncements and state practice with respect to domestic extradition legislation:
The Consular, Visa and Passport Division of the Ministry of External Affairs (CPV), Government of India is the Central/Nodal Authority that administers the Extradition Act and it processes, as well as all incoming and outgoing Extradition Requests.
Requests for extradition on behalf of the Republic of India can only be made by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, which formally submits the request for Extradition to the requested State through diplomatic channels. Extradition is not available at the request of members of the public.
India is able to make an extradition request to any country. India's treaty partners have obligations to consider India's requests. In the absence of a treaty, it is a matter for the foreign country, in accordance with its domestic laws and procedures, to determine whether the country can agree to India's extradition request on the basis of assurance of reciprocity. Similarly, any country can make an extradition request to India. Extradition is possible from non-treaty States as Section 3(4) of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962 provides for the process of extradition with non-treaty foreign States.
Generally, the following documents must be included in a provisional arrest request to be sent to a foreign country:
A prima facie case "means at first blush or at first sight, a complete case against the accused ... in order to prove a prima facie case, there must be evidence direct or circumstantial on each element."
What is a pandemic?
A pandemic describes an infectious disease where we see significant and ongoing person-to-person spread in multiple countries around the world at the same time. The last time a pandemic occurred was in 2009 with swine flu, which experts think killed hundreds of thousands of people. Pandemics are more likely if a virus is brand new, able to infect people easily and can spread from person-to-person in an efficient and sustained way.
Coronavirus (COVID-19), which has been declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) appears to tick all of these boxes. With no vaccine or treatment that can prevent it yet, containing its spread is vital.
Coronavirus and Extradition
The recent incident of the process of the court being affected by the epidemic has led to suspension of work as happened in the UK in the trial of fugitives like Nirav Modi and in Irish High court where Donald Binchy J. is of opinion that making any order of extradition "might encourage flight" and incarceration would only lead to an increase in the chance of the accused being exposed to COVID-19.
Another case appeared in the case of an accused named Mark John Rumble who has been extradited from Thailand and is being tested for the virus.
The abovementioned cases are a few instances of extradition proceedings being affected by COVID-19 which raises the dilemma whether extradition of the accused is as important as his right to health and safety vis-a-vis safety of the law enforcement agency and that of the prisoners who may get exposed if an infected fugitive is kept in their vicinity. The economic cost of the arrangement to be made in bringing the fugitive and the peculiar scenario of keeping him quarantined raises another important issue, which is yet to be answered.
Recently, the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justice Nageswara Rao took suo moto cognizance of the need to seek means for social distancing in prisoners across correctional homes in the country, and how this situation is complicated by overcrowding. Expressing concerns on overcrowding in prisons, the Apex Court has consequently issued notice to Chief Secretaries of all states and UTs, and Prison Departments. The government of Punjab is mulling the idea of release of more than 5000 prisoners to prevent the outbreak of the epidemic in the prisoner.
Therefore the only way to deal with the peculiarity of this situation is to adjourn the proceedings sine-die as carrying on the proceedings will only be halted by various issues like absence of attorneys, limitations on modes of travel for the concerned officer to go to the foreign land for representing the nation and further risking exposure to them. Although there are technological tools like videoconference through which proceedings of courts can be carried on but they will be limited to the decision of the concerned authorities in foreign land.
The right to health and safety of the accused as well as the standard of care adopted towards government personnel responsible for bringing back identified fugitives under the extradition law must be of paramount importance. Failure to do so can give rise to grave consequences and a snowball effect, which can jeopardize the health of many.
Ms Shubham Shree is the Partner at Atharva Legal LLP and Ms Kritika Swami is the Director, Field and Academia Program, Atharva Legal LLP. Authors' views are personal.
 State of West Bengal vs. Jugal Kishore More &. Anr. 1969 (1) SCC 440 ¶6.