Treaty vs. Constitution? UK’s pressure on india over Christian Michel’s detention for 7 Years

The ongoing legal battle surrounding Christian Michel, the alleged middleman in the AgustaWestland helicopter deal case, has exposed potential contradictions between India’s extradition obligations and domestic law. 

Michel, extradited from the UAE in 2018, now faces legal proceedings that question the limits of post-extradition charges.

In February 2023, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud referred to Article 17 of the India-UAE Extradition Treaty, which states that a person extradited “shall not be tried or punished in the requesting India except for offences for which his extradition took place or for offences connected therewith.”

The bench also cited Section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962, which similarly restricts trials to the extradition offence or offences for which the foreign state has given consent.

Despite these provisions, the Supreme Court allowed the prosecution to pursue charges under Section 467 of the IPC, raising concerns that this may contravene the Extradition Act. Critics argue that this could undermine the legal safeguards designed to protect extradited individuals.

Background to the case

In 2010, the Congress-led government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ordered a dozen AW101 helicopters for VVIP use, made in England by AgustaWestland, then a subsidiary of the Italian firm Finmeccanica. 

The decision had the approval granted by BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s national security adviser and principal secretary, Brajesh Mishra.

However, in 2013, India’s defence minister A.K. Antony ordered an investigation into allegations that 30 million in bribes had been paid to secure the contract. On January 1, 2014, the Singh administration terminated the US$753 million deal.

Two senior Finmeccanica executives, Giuseppe Orsi and Bruno Spagnolini, were accused of wrongdoing. In a final appeals court judgment in Italy in 2018, they were acquitted on the grounds of “insufficient evidence that the facts of culpability exist”.

Regarding Michel, a consultant to Finmeccanica who was not an accused in the case, the judges observed that “the investigation has not revealed any role attributable to Michel in the phase relating to determination of the operational requirements of any contract direct or indirect”.

The Government of India was a party to the Italian court proceedings and was therefore bound by the verdict. However, the Modi government ignored the outcome and obtained Michel’s extradition from Dubai, where he was based. On December 4, 2018, he was flown to Delhi.

This week, Michel’s Indian lawyer Aljo Joseph filed a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the actions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs, the CBI, and the Directorate of Enforcement.

Filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers high courts to enforce fundamental rights, the petition seeks a declaration that Article 17 of the India-UAE Extradition Treaty is ultra vires—beyond the legal authority—of Articles 21, 245, and 253 of the Constitution, specifically with regard to the expression “offences connected therewith.”

Joseph argued that this phrase gives the prosecution undue liberty to include additional offences in charges against an extradited fugitive, violating Section 21 of the Extradition Act and curtailing Michel’s constitutional right to liberty under Article 21.

The petition also requested responses from all four government agencies, though the Ministry of External Affairs has not provided any comment.

Michel’s ability to comply with bail conditions remains complicated. Unlike other accused, who were released on bail within days or months, Michel received conditional bail only this year, reportedly because he was considered a 'flight risk'.

He has informed the court that he cannot deposit his passport, as required, because it has expired and the British High Commission in Delhi will not renew it without a permanent address in India, which he currently does not have.

Michel had no reason to flee Dubai in 2018, when it was highly unlikely that any European Union country—including Britain, which was then an EU member—would have disregarded the Italian appeals court ruling and handed him over to Indian authorities.

His former Paris-based wife, Valerie Michel, said, “Christian loves India; he’s spent a significant part of his life there.”

Meanwhile, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) has reiterated that it will continue raising Michel’s case with Indian authorities at every appropriate opportunity.

The next hearing in the Delhi High Court is scheduled for January 9, by which time Michel will have already completed his sentence under Section 420 of the IPC.

Legal analysts suggest that the case could become a landmark in defining the balance between India’s international extradition obligations and the constitutional rights of extradited individuals.

Also Read: “Permanently Pause Migration from All Third-World Countries”: Donald Trump