The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel to declare the provision of the India-UAE extradition treaty as illegal. .Michel moved the Court challenging Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty signed in 1999. The provision allows India to prosecute people for offences for which extradition is sought and for "connected" offences as well. A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain today heard the case and remarked that it will not issue such a declaration only for the asking and that Michel should file a better petition with consequential reliefs. "What is the consequential relief which you want? We don’t grant simply declarations ki mera ye waala right hai isko declare kar dijiye (We don't simply grant a declaration that this is my right and please declare it)," the Bench remarked. It added that the India-UAE treaty has not been passed by the parliament and, therefore, not a law which can be declared illegal. "You are saying there is a certain treaty. It is not passed by the parliament, which means it is not a law. If it is not a law, it cannot be declared ultra vires. It is like a proposed bill. If you are being tried upon based on a proposed bill, you challenge that in appropriate proceedings," the Court said. Ultimately, the Court said that Michel may withdraw the case and file a fresh petition. Advocate Aljo K Joseph, appearing for Michel, said that he will file a case with complete relief. .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..Central to Michel's petition was 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 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. The plea said that Indian agencies violated this safeguard by invoking Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), punishable by life imprisonment, through supplementary chargesheets, even though this offence was not part of the extradition order issued by the Dubai courts. He also contended that he 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. The plea argued that Michel’s incarceration, including time spent in custody during extradition proceedings in the UAE, exceeded this statutory limit..Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh appeared for the CBI. .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
