Christian Michel James moves Supreme Court challenging continued detention in AgustaWestland case

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Central government's response to a plea filed by Christian Michel James, the British national accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter procurement scam, challenging his continued imprisonment in the case. .Michel has challenged the Delhi High Court's recent refusal to direct his release from jail. It was listed before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi. It has been listed next before a Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath. .Michel, a British citizen, is accused of having played the role of a middleman to enable helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland 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 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), bribes estimated at around US$33 million were transferred through bank accounts in the UK and UAE.The CBI had registered an FIR in the matter on March 12, 2013 against 18 accused persons for offences under Sections 120B (conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act..Michel was extradited from Dubai and brought to India on December 4, 2018. He has been in jail since then. Michel has contended that he has already served the maximum sentence for the offences alleged against him.His plea says he has remained behind bars four around seven years and four months now, in addition to 130 days of pre-extradition detention in Dubai..He had earlier moved the Delhi High Court with a plea for his release from jail. In that plea, Michel had also asked the High Court to declare that Section 21 of the Extradition Act on 1962, which prohibits India from trying an extradited individual for any offence not expressly listed in the extradition order, should take precedence over a 1999 India-UAE extradition treaty. The 1999 treaty permits prosecution not only for the offences for which extradition is granted but also for other “connected” offences.However, the High Court dismissed his plea on April 8. This verdict has now been challenged before the Supreme Court. .Before the top court, Michel has argued that the offences for which he was extradited to India (Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act) carried a maximum sentence of five years, before the law was amended in 2014. Michel has contended that he has already been imprisoned for over five years in the 2013 case, and is, therefore, eligible for release. He has also challenged the High Court's rejection of his plea to declare the 1962 Extradition Act as prevailing over the 1999 India-UAE treaty. "A prima facie reading of the findings given by the Hon'ble High Court shows that, according to it, the law made by Parliament is inferior to a treaty entered into between India and any other country... in the considered opinion of the petitioner, (this) is in absolute derogation of Article 245 of the Constitution," Michel's plea states. Michel was represented by advocates Aljo Joseph, Sriram Parakkat and MS Vishnu Shankar.