UK high court refuses Delhi permission to appeal its refusal to extradite Sanjay Bhandari

TOI correspondent from London: The Indian govt’s hopes of extraditing arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari from Britain were dealt a final crushing blow on Tuesday when the UK high court refused Delhi permission to appeal in the Supreme Court its decision to refuse Bhandari’s extradition.
Bhandari(62), who has been living in London since he fled India in 2016, is now a free man. There are no further appeals that Delhi can make.
Bhandari’s lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald KC, an extradition barrister, told TOI: “We are very relieved that the appeal has succeeded and that the govt of India’s application for leave to appeal further to the Supreme Court has been finally refused. In the absence of a certificate from the high court, the Indian Govt can now appeal no further. It is all over. So now, at last, Mr Bhandari can get on with his life.”

On Feb 28, the high court had overturned the lower court’s decision to extradite Bhandari, ruling instead it would be unlawful to extradite him and discharged him. Lord Justice Holroyde and Justice Steyn ruled Bhandari would be at real risk of extortion, torture or violence in Tihar jail and at risk of a flagrant denial of justice at trial (breach of article 6 of the ECHR) in India.
On March 12 the Indian govt put in an application to the high court to certify two points of law of general public importance in the case and to receive leave to appeal to the Supreme Court the decision to refuse Bhandari’s extradition.
On Tuesday Holroyde and Steyn refused to certify the Indian govt’s requested points of law and also refused to grant New Delhi leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The judges said “neither of the suggested points merits consideration by the Supreme Court” and that neither of the suggested points of law of general public importance had been involved in the court’s decision.
Bhandari is accused of wilfully evading taxes in India by not declaring foreign assets and foreign income amounting to Rs 665 crore on his Indian tax returns, meaning he allegedly evaded Rs 197 crore in taxes. He is also charged with money laundering.
The first point of law that India wanted to be certified was in relation to the judges’ decision that requiring Bhandari to prove the attempt to evade taxes was not wilful, rather than the Indian authorities having to prove it was wilful, as per the Black Money Act, was a flagrant denial of justice. The judges ruled this “fundamentally destroys the fairness of the prospective trial”.
The Indian govt argued that this did not amount to a flagrant denial of justice. The second point it wanted certified was that it should have been asked to provide further sovereign assurances about Bhandari’s treatment in Tihar jail rather than the extradition being turned down.
Holroyde and Steyn said in their pronouncement: “The first suggested point does not accurately reflect the decision of the court, in particular because it makes no reference to the standard of proof which the statutory provision imposes on an accused person. The imposition of that standard of proof is a highly unusual feature of this specific statutory provision. The second suggested point relates to what is described as ‘an open question’ in circumstances where the court did not find it necessary to address the issue of whether to invite yet further assurances. Had the court addressed that issue, its decision would necessarily have required a fact-specific assessment of all the circumstances of this case.”
With neither question certified, there can be no further appeals.
Bhandari’s lawyer Edward Fitzgerald has in the past acted for Julian Assange in his extradition battle. Fitzgerald got Pakistani national Jabir Motiwala, allegedly of D Company, discharged, and currently represents Nirav Modi.