Judges considering whether or not to allow an appeal by India against a decision by a lower court to not extradite alleged cricket bookie Sanjeev Kumar Chawla because of prison conditions at Tihar jail have sought further assurances from India.

Last month, judges at the Royal Court of Justice in London heard India’s appeal against a decision by the Westminster Magistrates Court not to extradite Chawla, who stands accused by India in the 2000 cricket match-fixing scandal. The prosecution said at the time India stood ready to provide any further assurances required on conditions in which he would be kept in should he be extradited.

During the April hearing, India questioned the evidence that the district judge had relied on as well as her decision to allow into evidence a “solemn” diplomatic assurance that carried the presumption of “good faith” from India regarding conditions at Tihar jail because it was given three weeks later.

Last year, District Judge Rebecca Crane had ruled that Chawla could not be extradited despite their being a prima facie case against him in the match-fixing scandal in early 2000, because of overcrowded conditions, endemic violence, and lack of medical facilities at the jail. By relying largely on “sensational” news reports, and “outdated figures” the defence case around conditions at Tihar had not crossed the evidence threshold, and Judge Crane “fell into error,” Crown Prosecution Barrister Mark Summers, acting on behalf of India, insisted during the hearing last month.

He also questioned the decision to exclude a second assurances sought be the court from India on conditions at Tihar as they would specifically apply to Chawla. The decision to not allow the assurance to be taken into account despite being three weeks late, was a “breach of case management,” he said, explaining that the evidence had been delayed because of “crossed wires” with India assuming they had already provided the needed evidence in an earlier assurance.

The defence had done little to “rebut the underlying assumption of good faith” and the assurances around the amount of personal space, security and medical care that would be provided to Chawla at Tihar.

However, defence barrister Helen Malcolm sought to challenge the picture of Tihar and the Indian jail system more widely — pointing to a number of incidents since the previous ruling, including in September and November last year, where 47 and 18 prisoners at Tihar were alleged to have been beaten up by authorities, and two deaths in custody this year.

The case comes in the backdrop of India’s efforts to extradite Vijay Mallya to Arthur Road Jail. Alan Mitchell, an international prison expert, was a defence witness in both cases, and in both cases sought to highlight difficult conditions in Indian jails, which both defence teams have sought to use. A final hearing in the Mallya case is due to take place in July.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW