DNA Edit: Extradition enigma

The now disgraced liquor baron Vijay Mallya is putting up a spirited defence against the Indian government’s pleas seeking his extradition.

The government has been raising the argument at the Westminster Magistrates Court in central London that Mallya allegedly made misrepresentations in loan applications — signed as far back in 2009 — to IDBI bank and that the funds that were allocated to him were spent in a manner that blatantly violated the stipulated terms of the loan agreement.

Another contention that the government has been raising at the UK court is that Mallya fraudulently attempted to pilfer funds and willfully defaulted on payments when asked to repay a loan made by a consortium of banks. On the other hand, Mallya’s advocates have not been holding back any punches either.

In fact, his lawyers have been vehemently contending that government’s version has no evidentiary basis and that the businessman had no intention of defaulting on the bank loans. As of today, odds are stacked against the government. History shows that not many extradition cases have been ruled in favour of India, primarily due to the sterling record of the British government in human rights.

The existing British legal system has two categories of countries when it comes to cases of extradition. A number of European countries and the US falls in the first category. These countries invariably receive preference when it comes to expedite adjudication.

Unfortunately, India does not fall into this segment. Extradition requests from India are classified into the second category where the adjudication process is often protracted and quite onerous. However, this in no measure should work to dissuade the Indian government from pursuing the extraction of Mallya with a righteous zeal.