NIRAV MODI
tion proceedings against former liquor baron Vijay Mallya in UK courts, but his extradition has been held up due to secret legal proceedings, as claimed by the British government. Mallya is learnt to have applied for asylum in the UK.
Delivering his judgement on Thursday, district judge Goozee said “the circulation of pearls, diamonds and gold between the Nirav Modi firms and the Dubai and Hong Kong based dummy companies was not genuine business and the companies were being used for transferring funds generated in the guise of sale-purchase/export-import of goods colloquially referred to as round tripping transactions”.
The court rejected Modi’s lawyers’ argument and the testimony of experts, including retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju, that he won’t get a fair trial in India and that he was being targeted due to political reasons.
“India is governed by its written constitution which has at its core the fundamental principle of the independence of the judiciary by virtue of the separation of powers between judiciary, the executive and the legislature. There is no cogent or reliable evidence that the judiciary in India is no longer independent, or capable of managing a fair trial even where it is a high-profile fraud with significant media interest. There is no evidence which allows me to find that if extradited Nirav Modi is at real risk of suffering a flagrant denial of justice,” Goozee said in the judgement.
Describing Katju’s testimony as not reliable, the court said it had the “hallmarks of an outspoken critic with his own personal agenda”.
The court also said Modi’s extradition is compatible with the Convention Rights within the meaning of Human Rights Act 1998.
Modi’s argument that India has poor prison conditions, a plea taken by Mallya as well during his trial, was rejected, with the court saying that the conditions at Barrack Number 12 in Arthur Road Jail in Maharashtra, where Modi will be held, “are far less restrictive and far more spacious than the current regime he is being held in within the prison estate in our own jurisdiction”.
It also rejected Modi’s submission that extraditing him in his current mental health would be unjust and oppressive. The judgement said that “Indian authorities have capacity to cope properly with Nirav Modi’s mental health and suicidal risk, bolstered by Nirav Modi being able to access private treatments from clinicians”.
Nirav Modi’s lawyer Zulfiquar Memon said: “Nirav Modi was not being allowed to present evidence; he didn’t get any relief from the trial court (during the trial). Our hope is now high court only”. Another Modi lawyer, Vijay Aggarwal, said: “Two points in this judgement I find very unfortunate, firstly UK courts considering 161 CRPC statement (statement recorded before police/investigating officer) recorded by CBI to be admissible and secondly considering jail conditions in Arthur Road fit as per human dignity”.