India’s efforts to extradite Sanjeev Kumar Chawla, who stands accused by India in the 2000 cricket match fixing scandal, continued on Tuesday as India sought an appeal in the High Court on the case.

It questioned the evidence that the 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 than required.

Prison conditions

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 By relying largely on “sensational” news reports, and “outdated figures” the defence case around conditions at Tihar had not crossed the evidence threshold, and Judge Crane “fell into error,” Crown Prosecution Barrister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. He added that there was “no international consensus” about the conditions alluded to at Tihar. He defended India’s decision not to allow an independent inspector to review conditions at Tihar, as had been requested by the defence. “That is not an easy choice for a requesting state,” he told Lord Justice Leggatt and Justice Dingemans at the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday.

While up to date figures suggested the overcrowding was to a far lower degree than suggested by the defence — particularly after the expansion of Delhi’s jail network from 9 to 16 — violence was limited to “occasional outbursts” of violence, he said. 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 3 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. He also sought to highlight evidence of improving conditions. “ “This is not an administration that is blind or deliberately closing its eyes.”

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.

Second assurance

India’s tendency over the past three or four decades to respond to accusations of poor prison conditions or mistreatment by belittling them as “malign or trumped up” charges gave her “no confidence” whatsoever in the diplomatic assurances provided by India in the case of Chawla. “These assertions seriously undermine the credibility” of assurances from India, she told the court and there was a “Complete failure to engage with genuine concerns.”

During the case, the judges frequently intervened with questions and comments to both sides. During a lengthy discussion over the decision to exclude the second assurance from India, one of the judges said judges needed to be given flexibility on the management of cases. What could future district judges do in the future if other foreign powers provided evidence at the “11th hour and 59th minute,” he asked of the precedent that could be set if countries were simply allowed to flout court directed timetables for the submission of evidence or assurances.

He also criticised a number of aspects of India’s response, including the lack of detail when it came to the issue of violence: highlighting an instance where Brazil sought an extradition he pointed to the “detailed evidence’ presented by them in contrast to hat offered by Indian authorities.

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.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW