Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Inadequate Representation Cannot Be Acceptable; Requesting Agency Must Ensure Effective Legal Pursuit in Extradition  – Delhi HC in Samsung Gulf Electronics vs Union of India

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a landmark judgment, has directed the Delhi Police to facilitate the appointment of an advocate for the extradition proceedings of Sukhmeet Singh Anand in Spain. This ruling came in a writ petition filed by Samsung Gulf Electronics seeking a Writ of Mandamus for legal representation in the said extradition proceedings.

The Court underscored the need for effective legal representation in international extradition proceedings, emphasizing the petitioner’s right to assist the prosecution and the duty of respondent authorities, particularly the Delhi Police, to ensure effective legal follow-up on the extradition request.

After Samsung Gulf Electronics filed a FIR leading to a chargesheet in 2017, Sukhmeet Singh Anand was detained in Spain based on a Red Corner Notice. His extradition was initially denied by the Spanish National Court, citing inadequate representation by Indian authorities.

Victim’s Right to Participation: Referencing Supreme Court judgments, the Court underlined the importance of a victim’s participatory rights in criminal proceedings.

Responsibility of Delhi Police and MEA: The judgment criticized the shifting of responsibility between the Delhi Police and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) over the appointment of an advocate, emphasizing that the initiating agency must proactively ensure effective representation.

Adherence to International Legal Standards: The Court pointed out that according to Section 14.1 of the Passive Extradition Law (PEL), the participation of the Requesting State in extradition hearings is permissible and crucial for a fair process.

Advocate Appointment Mandate: The Court directed that the Delhi Police should officially request the appointment of an advocate for effective representation, in line with domestic and international legal principles.

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Delhi Police) were ordered to arrange for the appointment of an advocate for extradition proceedings, potentially at the expense of the petitioner. The MEA is required to communicate this decision to the Spanish authorities, ensuring adherence to established legal rights and international norms.

Date of Decision: April 04, 2024

SAMSUNG GULF ELECTRONICS, VS UNION OF INDIA

 

Similar News