Sanjay BhandariLONDON: The Indian govt has applied to the London high court for a point of law of general public importance to be certified to allow India to appeal the Sanjay Bhandari extradition judgment in Britain’s Supreme Court.The Indian authorities are seeking to extradite Bhandari (62), a defence middleman residing in London, to face criminal charges of money laundering and wilfully evading taxes in India by not declaring foreign assets and foreign income on his Indian income tax returns, claiming he evaded Rs 197 crore in taxes, contrary to Sec 51 of the Black Money Act.In the tax years 2012 to 2013 and 2015 to 2016 Bhandari, an Indian national, declared he had nil foreign assets despite having amassed Rs 731 crore of foreign assets, the charges state.On Feb 28 two high court judges, Lord Justice Holroyde and Mrs Justice Steyn, ordered Bhandari’s discharge on two grounds, namely that his extradition him to India would be a breach of both Articles 3 (torture) and 6 (fair trial) of the ECHR ( European Convention on Human Rights ).The judges said he would be at real risk of extortion, accompanied by violence, from other prisoners, and also from prison officials inside Tihar jail — where he would be detained — as he was “perceived to be rich”.They commented that “incidents of prison officials, including senior officials, taking bribes, engaging in, and facilitating, extortion, occur all too commonly” in Tihar jail and the risk was not removed by India’s assurances, amounting to an ECHR Article 3 breach.They also said because Bhandari would have to prove the attempt to evade tax was not wilful, rather than prosecuting authorities having to prove it was wilful, this was a flagrant denial of his rights under Article 6.A high court official told TOI: “An application was filed on Wednesday by the respondent (Indian govt) to certify two points of law of general public importance; and grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to those two questions.”TOI understands that Delhi’s argument is that reversing the burden of proof is not a “flagrant denial of justice” as per Article 6. Delhi also claims that it should have been asked to provide further assurances about Bhandari’s treatment in Tihar jail rather than the extradition being turned down under Article 3.Bhandari, represented by Edward Fitzgerald KC, had appealed in the high court under six grounds, but the other four grounds were dismissed.

Source: The Times March 14, 2025 09:32 UTC