The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea filed by allegedChristian Mich middleman el James in the ₹3,600-crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam, in which he has sought release from jail.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Centre, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), directing them to respond within four weeks.
James has challenged Article 17 of the 1999 India-UAE extradition treaty, which permits the requesting country—in this case, India—to prosecute an extradited individual not only for the specific offence cited during extradition but also for related offences.
At the outset, his counsel argued that the high court had gone so far as to state that the treaty between India and the UAE would prevail over any existing domestic law. “I had filed a writ petition before the high court challenging this portion of the treaty,” the counsel submitted. The bench noted that notice had been issued and scheduled the matter for hearing in July.
Also read: SC to hear PIL seeking guidelines for issuing Aadhaar on May 4
Earlier, on April 24, the apex court had referred another plea by James seeking release from custody to a different bench. This followed the Delhi High Court’s April 8 decision dismissing his petition, holding that there was no merit in his claims. James, a British national, was extradited from Dubai in December 2018.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, observed that similar pleas had previously been heard by a bench headed by Justice Nath, and, therefore, referred the matter accordingly.
In his petition, James challenged provisions of the extradition treaty as well as a trial court order dated August 7, 2025, which had rejected his application for release under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Before the High Court, it was argued that an extradited individual can only be tried for the specific offences for which extradition was granted, not for any additional or connected offences.
James also contended that he had completed seven years in custody as of December 4, 2025, which he claimed amounted to the maximum possible sentence for the offences tied to his extradition, making his continued detention unlawful.
The High Court, however, ruled that he could not reopen issues related to the treaty that had already been considered, at least prima facie, by the Supreme Court. It further held that the offences for which he was being prosecuted arose directly from the same factual background, thereby falling within the treaty’s scope.
Following his extradition, James was arrested by both the CBI and the ED. He is one of three alleged middlemen in the case, the others being Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa.
Follow us
