The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to the Central government on a plea filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam case accused Christian Michel to declare the India-UAE extradition treaty as subservient to the Extradition Act, a law made by the Indian parliament. 

A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain sought responses from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The Bench said that the respondents can take objections to the maintainability of the plea.

The case will be heard next on January 9.

In his petition, Michel has asked the Court to declare that Section 21 of the Extradition Act -- which prohibits India from trying an extradited individual for any offence not expressly listed in the extradition order — should take precedence over the 1999 India-UAE extradition treaty, which permits prosecution not only for the offences for which extradition is granted but also for other “connected” offences.

He has also challenged the trial court’s order of August 7 by which his application under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to release him from jail was rejected.

Michel, a British citizen, was extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018 and has been behind bars since then.

He is accused of having played the role of a middleman to enable helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland to secure a contract from the then-Congress-led Indian government for the sale of helicopters for VVIP transport.

Michel allegedly entered into as many as twelve contracts with AgustaWestland to legitimise illicit commissions or kickbacks amounting to €42.27 million received on the procurement of VVIP helicopters by the Government of India. 

According to the CBI, bribes estimated at around US$33 million were transferred through bank accounts in the UK and UAE.

Notably, this is the second petition filed by Michel before the High Court against the India-UAE treaty. On November 17, the High Court refused to entertain his plea seeking a declaration that Article 17 of the extradition treaty was illegal.

The Court had then noted that Michel did not seek any consequential relief in the plea.

Today, Advocate Aljo K Joseph appeared for James and informed the Bench about the prayers in his petition, which include a declaration against the Treaty and challenge to the trial court order of August 7 refusing to release him from custody.

He stated that the CBI has been investigating the case for 13 years, and yet the probe remains incomplete.

"I have been in custody for seven years," he said.

Meanwhile, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Satya Ranjan Swain appeared for the MHA and the MEA and stated the plea was not maintainable.

The Court asked the respondents to file their replies, including on the aspects of maintainability.

Central to Michel's petition is his argument that Indian agencies cannot rely on Article 17 of the India–UAE Treaty, which permits trial for offences 'connected' to those for which extradition was sought. He has contended that the Article violates Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which bars India from trying an extradited person for offences other than those explicitly mentioned in the extradition decree. 

According to the plea, Indian agencies violated this safeguard by invoking Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (punishable by life imprisonment) through supplementary chargesheets, even though this offence was not part of the extradition order issued by the Dubai courts. 

As per the petitioner, Michel has already completed the maximum sentence possible for the offences for which he was extradited and that his continued detention in India was illegal.

According to the petition, the original 2017 CBI chargesheet accused him under Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which carried a maximum sentence of five years at the time.

Michel’s incarceration, including time spent in custody during extradition proceedings in the UAE, has exceeded this statutory limit, it has been contended.