The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the plea of a French national Verhoeven, Marie-Emmanuelle, accused of killing a Chilean senator in 1991, seeking her release from detention in India.
A bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and N.V. Ramana dismissed a habeas corpus petition and a special leave petition filed by Ms Verhoeven challenging her detention from February 17, 2015 on the basis of a Red Corner Notice issued by Interpol on the request of the Republic of Chile for her detention for the alleged offence committed in Chile. Subsequently, she was provisionally arrested on 24.02.2015 by an order passed by the additional chief metropolitan magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Section 34 of the Extradition Act. The Delhi high court quashed the order passed by the ACMM and directed her release. But the government passed a fresh order and continued her detention and this is challenged in the fresh petition.
Writing the judgment Justice Lokur said, “We hold that there is a binding extradition treaty between India and Chile and that the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1962 (other than Chapter III thereof) are applicable to the Republic of Chile in respect of the offences specified in the Extradition Treaty.”
The bench said the present proceedings have arisen out of yet another requisition made by the Republic of Chile for her extradition to Chile to face trial in the assassination of the Chilean senator. The extradition of a fugitive criminal is a serious matter since it involves the person’s liberty.
It added that the principal question for consideration is whether there is a binding extradition treaty in terms of Section 2(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962 between India and Chile. Our answer is in the affirmative. The subsidiary question is assuming there is no binding extradition treaty between India and Chile, whether a requisition by Chile invoking the principle of reciprocity and the general principles of international law for extraditing the petitioner from India is maintainable.
In our opinion, the bench said the general principles of international law do not debar the requisition. However, whether the petitioner ought to be extradited or not is a decision that the concerned Magistrate, before whom the extradition proceedings are pending, will need to take on the evidence and material before him. It asked the Magistrate to decide on the extradition of the petitioner on the merits of the case and the evidence before him.
