India’s efforts to extradite Sanjeev Kumar Chawla, who stands accused in the 2000 cricket match fixing scandal, continued on Tuesday as New Delhi sought an appeal in the high court.
Last year, District Judge Rebecca Crane had ruled that Mr. Chawla could not be extradited despite there being a prima facie case against him because of overcrowded conditions, endemic violence, and lack of medical facilities at the Tihar jail.
Acting on behalf of India, Crown Prosecution Barrister Mark Summers said that the defence’s case, by relying largely on “sensational” news reports, and “outdated figures”, did not cross the threshold of evidence, and hence the judge “fell into error”.
He added that there was “no international consensus” about the conditions alluded to at Tihar.
He defended India’s decision not to allow an independent inspector to review conditions at Tihar, as had been requested by the defence.
“That is not an easy choice for a requesting state,” he told Lord Justice Leggatt and Justice Dingemans at the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday.
Violence in the jail
While figures suggested that the overcrowding was to a far lesser degree than suggested by the defence — particularly after the expansion of Delhi’s jail network from nine to 16 — violence was limited to “occasional outbursts”, he said.
He also questioned the decision to exclude a second assurance sought by the court from India on prison conditions. The decision to not allow the assurance as it came three weeks late, was a “breach of case management”, he said.
The defence had done little to “rebut the underlying assumption of good faith” and the assurances around the amount of personal space, security and medical care that would be provided to Mr. Chawla at Tihar, he said. He also sought to highlight evidence of improving conditions. “This is not an administration that is blind or deliberately closing its eyes.”
However, defence barrister Helen Malcolm sought to challenge the picture of Tihar and the Indian jail system more widely. She pointed to a number of incidents since the previous ruling, including incidents in which prisoners were alleged to have been beaten up by authorities, and two deaths in custody this year.
India’s tendency to dismiss accusations of poor prison conditions or mistreatment as “maligned or trumped up” gave her “no confidence” whatsoever, she said.
“These assertions seriously undermine the credibility” of assurances from India, she told the court, adding that there was a “complete failure to engage with genuine concerns”.
During a lengthy discussion over the decision to exclude the second assurance from India, one of the judges said judges needed to be given flexibility on the management of cases.
He also criticised a number of aspects of New Delhi’s response, including lack of details when it came to the issue of violence. He highlighted an instance when Brazil, which had sought an extradition, presented “detailed evidence”.
The case comes in the backdrop of India’s efforts to extradite Vijay Mallya to Arthur Road Jail.
Alan Mitchell, an international prison expert, was a defence witness in both cases, and in both cases sought to highlight difficult conditions in Indian jails, which both defence teams have sought to use.
