Fast track to India? – What Bhandari’s case means for future extraditions

In February 2025, the High Court of England and Wales halted the extradition of Indian businessman, Sanjay Bhandari, to India. The Court held that there was a real risk that Mr Bhandari’s human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) would be violated if he were to be extradited. This post analyses the Court’s reasoning and its implications for future extradition requests from India.

Background of the case

The Indian government sought Mr Bhandari’s extradition pursuant to two extradition requests relating to allegations of money laundering[1] and tax evasion[2]. Mr Bhandari’s extradition was ordered following a decision by District Judge Snow of the Westminster Magistrates Court to send his case to the Home Secretary under Section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA).

Mr Bhandari appealed the District Court’s judgment to the High Court on several grounds,[3] including whether his extradition would violate his rights under Article 3 (the prohibition of torture) and Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) of the ECHR.

Analysis of the Court’s judgment

The Court’s analysis of these issues is set out below.

Article 3 violation: Legal test and the Court’s application

Section 87(1) of the EA requires that a judge “must decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with” their rights under the ECHR. An incompatibility with these rights would result in the person’s discharge.[4] With respect to Article 3, a person must be at a “real risk” of being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment. Additionally, where there is a risk of violence emanating from non-state actors (e.g. other prisoners), the courts test whether there are strong grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the state will fail to provide reasonable protection to the requested person.

Where a Court finds there to be a real risk of proscribed treatment, a requesting state may provide an assurance that the individual will be treated in a manner that is compliant with Article 3.

Application to Mr Bhandari’s case

Mr Bhandari argued that (i) he faced a real risk of inter-prisoner violence or proscribed treatment by the Indian police or other investigative agencies; and (ii) India’s assurances were not adequate to negate this risk. Therefore, extraditing him in these circumstances would violate Article 3.

The Court answered both points in favour of Mr Bhandari.

The Court held that Mr Bhandari faced a real risk of proscribed treatment by several investigating agencies, regardless of the location of his questioning. It made a scathing observation that “the use of proscribed treatment to obtain confessions is commonplace and endemic”.  It also noted that there is an “acceptance in India of torture or other serious mistreatment as a method of evidence-gathering…beyond the police and investigating bodies.” The Court’s conclusion was based on:

1. Evidence of under-resourcing;
2. A lack of modern investigation techniques or sufficient personnel;
3. India’s failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which shows its unwillingness to discontinue using torture;
4. Evidence of violence by investigation officers to extort money from wealthy individuals like Mr Bhandari.

Assurances provided by India

India provided assurances that Mr Bhandari would be detained in Tihar prison, which has systems in place to prevent torture or violence from investigating bodies, prison officials or other prisoners. India assured that Mr Bhandari would be detained alone in a cell which was not high security (and, therefore, away from the risk of inter-prisoner violence). Additionally, the ward containing Mr Bhandari’s cell would be guarded 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and monitored on CCTV by senior jail officials.

Despite the assurances, the Court held that they were not enough to alleviate the risk of torture by investigative authorities, or of being subject to inter-prisoner violence rights under Article 3. There were two broad reasons for this.

Firstly, as mentioned above, the Court found that the institutional pervasiveness of torture extended beyond the police and investigating authorities. Therefore, Mr Bhandari’s location in a prison did not provide effective protection from torture or inhuman treatment.

Secondly, the evidence specific to Tihar prison suggested that due to overcrowding and understaffing, the prison staff would neither have the time nor the inclination/aptitude to monitor investigating officers or other prisoners. The Court was also not convinced by the assurance of CCTV surveillance because it was shown a video where prisoners killed a fellow inmate in full view of the prison guards. The Court also noted that Mr Bhandari, being a wealthy man, was susceptible to extortion by the prison officials.

Accordingly, the Court found that India’s assurances did not reduce the established real risks to a compliant level.

Article 6 violation

Mr Bhandari would be prosecuted for tax evasion under the BMA, Section 54 of which would require him to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he did not have the necessary mental state to commit the alleged offence.

The Court held that imposing such an unprecedented reverse burden of proof (requiring Mr Bhandari to prove an absence of wilfulness to the criminal standard) creates a real risk of serious miscarriages of justice, amounting to a flagrant denial of Article 6 ECHR.

The Judgment’s implications

The High Court’s ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for extradition requests from India:

1. The Court’s recognition of institutional pervasiveness of torture in India may operate as a hurdle in all extradition requests to India.
2. Assurances from India will have to actively engage with the issue of torture (among other things). A simple assurance of vigilance is not considered sufficient, especially given the problem of overcrowding and understaffing in Indian prisons. This is likely to be challenging, given that a recently published India Justice Report 2025 records that as of 2022, India’s prisons operate at a national average of 131% capacity, and the overall staff vacancies were at 30%.
3. Following the Court’s judgment, a Senior District Judge discharged another individual subject to an Indian extradition request — Mr Virkaran Awasty. While the judgment is not publicly available, reports suggest that he was discharged on grounds of prima facie case, prison conditions and abuse of process.
4. India tends to frequently use Tihar prison and Arthur Road Jail for housing extradited individuals. With respect to Arthur Road Jail:
   • As of May 2025, there are reports of Arthur Road Jail being overcrowded (housing 3,268 inmates versus a capacity of 999 inmates).
   • While there is insufficient information in the public domain about staffing at this specific prison, the Bombay High Court has recently noted an affidavit filed by the Government of Maharashtra, stating that there are approximately 40% vacancies against the sanctioned strength of prison staff in prisons across Maharashtra.[5]
   • Relevantly:
     1. Nirav Modi has reportedly filed an application to reopen his appeal against extradition. While the application is not publicly available, press reports note that Mr Modi has argued that if extradited, he will be interrogated and tortured in Arthur Road Jail. This suggests that the Court’s judgment in Mr Bhandari’s case may form a central theme of Mr Modi’s application. Relevantly, reports state that India will provide an assurance not to arrest or book Mr Modi for any further offences.
     2. The Indian government has reportedly provided an assurance that Mr Modi would not be interrogated if extradited to India — he would only be tried.
   • Therefore, it is foreseeable that other individuals sought to be detained in Arthur Road Jail are also likely to raise similar concerns as Mr Bhandari in their extradition proceedings.
5. With respect to Tihar Jail, a CPS delegation reportedly visited Tihar prison in September 2025 to assess its facilities and living conditions. The delegation was reportedly informed of proposals to designate special enclaves to house high-profile inmates to guarantee further safety and access to amenities. It remains to be seen whether this proposal, if implemented, would overcome the concerns raised in Bhandari relating to the risk of Article 3 violations.
6. It will be particularly challenging to extradite individuals sought to be prosecuted under the BMA, given the Court’s observations relating to Article 6 of the ECHR.

How Gherson can assist

Gherson have extensive experience in assisting with extradition and human rights matters. If you have any questions arising from this blog, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail, or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2025

[1] The relevant Indian statute was Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

[2] The relevant Indian statute was Section 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act 2015 (BMA).

[3] There were 4 other grounds of appeal, which were rejected by the High Court, and are not the subject of this article.

[4] Section 87(2) of the EA.

[5] Sachin Chandramani Lone v Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Crl WP 256/2025, Order dated 15 April 2025.