The Antwerp Court of Appeal has ruled that Indian businessman Mehul Choksi faces no real or serious risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or flagrant denial of justice if sent back to India, paving the way for his extradition to face prosecution in the Punjab National Bank fraud case. [Mehul Choksi v. Public Prosecutor General of the Court of Appeal, Antwerp]
A Bench of President D Thys and Judges K Lenaers and I Arnauts dismissed Choksi’s appeal and upheld the November 2024 order of the Antwerp trial court that had declared two Indian arrest warrants executable
India’s Ministry of External Affairs had sought Choksi’s extradition based on arrest warrants issued by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Greater Mumbai, in connection with charges of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust by a banker, cheating, forgery, corruption and misconduct by a public official between December 2016 and January 2019.
The Antwerp court noted that the offences correspond to serious crimes under Belgian law, punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year, satisfying the statutory extradition requirements under the Belgian Extradition Acts of 1833 and 1874 and the 1901 Anglo-Belgian Extradition Treaty, extended to India in 1954.
Choksi, represented by Advocates John Maes, Simon Bekaert and Christophe Marchand, had argued that his extradition was politically motivated and that there was a risk of torture or unfair trial in India.
He also contended that the Belgian prosecutor failed to disclose a 2022 decision by INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of Files (CCF), which had raised concerns about his alleged abduction from Antigua.
The Court rejected these arguments, observing that it could not be inferred that Choksi was kidnapped in Antigua on the orders of the Indian authorities. The judges further held that the CCF decision was not part of the official extradition dossier and that the omission by the prosecution did not amount to a procedural defect.
On Choksi’s claim of political motivation and unfair trial, the Court found no evidence to support it.
The Court also recorded that Indian authorities had submitted assurances detailing Choksi’s custody conditions in Mumbai’s Arthur Road Prison, where he would be held in Barrack No. 12 with independent sanitation and medical facilities.
Finding no violation of Article 2 of the Belgian Extradition Act, the Court declared Choksi’s appeal “admissible but unfounded”, confirming the execution of both Indian arrest warrants.
However, the Court refused to enforce one specific charge - causing the disappearance of evidence - since that offence is not punishable under Belgian law.
In the ruling rendered on October 17, Choksi was ordered to pay €48.40 in costs.
Disclaimer: This report is based on the official judgment of the Antwerp Court of Appeal dated October 17, 2025. The judgment was issued in Flemish, the official language of judicial proceedings in Flanders. The contents have been translated into English using AI-assisted tools for accuracy and clarity.