- Tuesday, May 20, 2025
By: India Weekly Staff
THE High Court in London on Tuesday (14) began hearing jeweller Nirav Modi’s appeal on the grounds of his mental health against extradition to India to face charges of fraud and money laundering. Modi is accused of defaulting on loans estimated to be worth $2 billion from Punjab National Bank (PNB). He denies wrongdoing.
Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay presided over the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice to determine whether District Judge Sam Goozee’s February ruling in favour of extradition was incorrect to overlook the diamond merchant’s “high risk of suicide”.
The court heard of an additional assurance from the Indian authorities on November 13, which reiterates previous commitments of adequate specialist medical care and an ambulance at hand should the jeweller be extradited to Mumbai.
“He is at high risk of suicide already and his condition is likely to deteriorate further in Mumbai,” Edward Fitzgerald QC argued as he opened the appeal on behalf of Modi – who in custody at Wandsworth Prison in south-west London since his arrest in March 2019.
Fitzgerald argued before the two-judge bench that the Indian government’s assurances of medical assistance of Mumbai Central Prison, where Modi will be held after he is extradited, would not be adequate given the “certainty” of deterioration in his mental health.
Fitzgerald also sought an adjournment in view of the short time-frame to study the new assurance from India, received last month.
The judges referred to the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who recently lost his extradition appeal against the US government – with reference to India’s “sovereign assurances” falling within a similar vein.
Tuesday (14)’s hearing follows a ruling in August from High Court Justice Martin Chamberlain that arguments concerning the 50-year-old jeweller’s “severe depression” and “high risk of suicide” were arguable at a full appeal hearing.
A group of Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officials have flown in from India for the case, which is being presented in court by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) barrister Helen Malcolm QC on behalf of the Indian authorities. A judgment on the appeal is expected to be reserved, to be handed down at a later date.
The appeal against Judge Goozee’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruling to send the case to the Home Secretary was granted leave to appeal in the High Court on two grounds – under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to hear arguments if it would be “unjust or oppressive” to extradite Modi due to his mental state and Section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003, also related to mental ill health.
Modi’s legal team have sought to establish that it would be “oppressive” to extradite him due to his mental condition that could lead to suicidal impulses (his mum died by suicide), and that he is at risk of “flagrant denial of justice” in India.
His lawyers have also claimed the Covid-19 pandemic is “overwhelming” the Indian prison system.
The CPS, on behalf of India, has highlighted the “high level of diplomatic assurance” to provide adequate medical attention to the accused on being extradited to face trial in India.
Modi is the subject of two sets of criminal proceedings, with the CBI case relating to a large-scale fraud upon PNB through the fraudulent obtaining of letters of undertaking (LoUs) or loan agreements. The Enforcement Directorate case relates to the laundering of the proceeds of that fraud.
He also faces two additional charges of “causing the disappearance of evidence” and intimidating witnesses or “criminal intimidation to cause death”, which were added to the CBI case.
If he wins this appeal hearing in the High Court, Modi cannot be extradited unless the Indian government is successful in getting permission to appeal at the Supreme Court on a point of law of public importance.
