Division Bench mandates simultaneous forwarding of Interpol-issued arrest warrants to Central Government and Magistrate to ensure prompt arrest and prevent fugitive evasion
In a significant judgment dated September 8, 2026, the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) in the case of Rakhul Krishnan v. Union of India elucidated the procedural obligations under the Extradition Act, 1962, concerning the handling of international arrest warrants issued by foreign treaty States through Interpol. The court emphasized the critical role of the Nodal Agency in India upon receipt of such warrants, clarifying the simultaneous actions required to prevent fugitive criminals from evading justice.
The case arose from a dispute involving the appellant, an NRI businessman, who sought the arrest and extradition of the eighth respondent. The respondent, after allegedly defaulting on a loan amounting to approximately 6 million UAE Dirhams and being convicted by a Dubai Court, absconded to India. An international arrest warrant was issued by Dubai and transmitted to the Nodal Agency in India through Interpol. However, the appellant contended that the Indian authorities failed to act on the warrant, allowing the respondent to evade arrest.
The Kerala High Court revisited the legal framework governing extradition between India and the UAE, recognizing the existence of a formal Extradition Treaty, which was notified under Section 3 of the Extradition Act, 1962. The court referred to key principles of international law such as reciprocity and the "aut dedere aut judicare" (extradite or prosecute) doctrine, which underpin the treaty obligations.
The court distinguished two procedural pathways under the Act and Treaty for handling fugitives:
1. Post-Formal Request Arrest and Extradition: Arrests pursuant to a formal written requisition for surrender made through diplomatic channels as per Article 8 of the Treaty and Sections 4 to 8 of the Act.
2. Immediate Arrest Prior to Formal Request: Arrests based on an urgent request for provisional arrest, often communicated via Interpol, under Article 9 of the Treaty and Sections 9 and 34-B of the Act.
Importantly, the court clarified that the receipt of an International arrest warrant through Interpol does not itself equate to a formal extradition request but imposes an obligation on the Indian Nodal Agency to act promptly. The court held that upon receipt of such a warrant, the Nodal Agency must:
- - Immediately inform the Central Government, particularly the Ministry of External Affairs, to consider initiating the formal extradition process under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act.
- - Simultaneously notify the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 9 of the Act, empowering the Magistrate to independently consider issuing a warrant of arrest.
This dual approach ensures that the procedures under Sections 9 and 34-B run concurrently, enhancing the chances of timely arrest and preventing the fugitive from slipping through procedural gaps. The court underscored that these processes are independent and not mutually exclusive, with the Magistrate's three-month detention limit under Section 9 serving as a bridge until the Central Government regularizes the extradition proceedings.
The court further noted that the Nodal Agency's failure to forward the international arrest warrant to both the Central Government and Magistrate in this case led to the respondent's evasion of arrest, thereby contravening the prescribed legal process.
While the appellant's specific prayers became infructuous due to the passage of time and absence of a formal extradition request from UAE, the court's ruling serves as a precedent to guide enforcement agencies in future cases involving international arrest warrants.
This judgment reinforces India's commitment to international cooperation in criminal matters and delineates a clear, actionable protocol for authorities handling extradition requests, ensuring fugitive criminals cannot exploit procedural ambiguities.
Bottom Line:
Extradition procedure clarified under Extradition Act, 1962 - Role of Nodal Agency upon receipt of International arrest warrant issued by a foreign treaty State emphasized.
Statutory provision(s):
Extradition Act, 1962 Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 34-B; Extradition Treaty between India and UAE Articles 4, 5, 8, 9
Rakhul Krishnan v. Union of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2978403
