Interpol arrest warrants: Nodal agency must promptly alert MEA and jurisdictional Magistrate, Kerala High Court rules

The appellant, an NRI businessman, alleged that the eighth respondent had borrowed approximately AED 6 million from him for a hotel business and failed to repay it. A cheque issued towards repayment was dishonoured, following which the appellant initiated criminal proceedings in Dubai. The Dubai Court convicted the eighth respondent and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.

After the eighth respondent allegedly absconded to India, the Dubai authorities issued an international arrest warrant on 16 May 2018. The warrant was transmitted through Interpol to India’s nodal agency, the CBI-NCB Interpol. The appellant sought directions to the Union authorities to arrest and extradite the eighth respondent under the Extradition Act, 1962 and the India–UAE Extradition Treaty.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that under Article 5 of the Treaty, extradition of a national required a formal request through diplomatic channels and that an international arrest warrant alone was insufficient for extradition.

During the pendency of the appeal, no fresh extradition request was received from the UAE and no stay or arrest direction was issued. The Division Bench therefore found the substantive relief infructuous, but proceeded to clarify the legal procedure applicable to international arrest warrants transmitted through Interpol.

Whether an international arrest warrant issued by a foreign treaty State and transmitted through Interpol, without a formal extradition request through diplomatic channels, can trigger proceedings for the provisional or immediate arrest of a fugitive criminal in India?

Whether the Indian nodal agency, upon receiving such an international arrest warrant, is required to forward it to the Central Government and the jurisdictional Magistrate for action under Sections 34-B and 9 of the Extradition Act, 1962?

Whether the international arrest warrant by itself authorises the nodal agency to directly arrest the fugitive criminal without the intervention of a Magistrate?

The Court applied the Extradition Act, 1962 and the India–UAE Extradition Treaty. Article 5 of the Treaty embodies the principle that nationals of the contracting States are not to be extradited, while requiring the requested State to submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution where the conduct constitutes an offence in both States.

Article 8 and Sections 4–8 of the Act govern a formal extradition request made through diplomatic channels and the ensuing surrender process.

Article 9 of the Treaty permits provisional arrest in urgent cases through Interpol, while Sections 9 and 34-B of the Act provide separate mechanisms for arrest before receipt of a formal extradition request: Section 9 permits a Magistrate independently to issue a warrant where the person appears to be a fugitive criminal, and Section 34-B permits the Central Government to request a Magistrate to issue a provisional warrant upon an urgent request from a foreign State.

Relying on Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 11 SCC 214, and Marie-Emmanuelle Verhoeven v. Union of India, (2016) 6 SCC 456, the Court recognised extradition and the related principle of aut dedere aut judicare—either extradite or prosecute.

It also relied on Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 9 SCC 551, for the proposition that a foreign arrest warrant does not authorise direct arrest in India without judicial intervention.

The Court distinguished between two legally separate situations. A formal request for surrender and extradition must comply with Article 8 of the Treaty and Section 4 of the Act, including transmission through diplomatic channels. However, an urgent request for immediate arrest pending receipt of the formal extradition request may be transmitted through Interpol under Article 9 of the Treaty and may invoke Sections 9 or 34-B of the Act.

Accordingly, the absence of a formal extradition request did not justify the nodal agency’s complete inaction. Upon receipt of the Dubai international arrest warrant through Interpol, the agency was required to forward it to the Ministry of External Affairs for consideration of action under Section 34-B and simultaneously bring it to the notice of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 9.

These remedies are concurrent and may proceed in parallel. Section 9 provides an interim judicial basis for arrest, subject to its three-month limitation and subsequent regularisation under Section 5, while Section 34-B provides a provisional-arrest route initiated through the Central Government.

Nevertheless, the nodal agency could not itself execute the international warrant or directly arrest the fugitive; arrest required the intervention of a competent Magistrate.

The Court nevertheless clarified that, on receiving an international arrest warrant from a foreign treaty State through Interpol, the Indian nodal agency must simultaneously forward it to the Central Government for possible action under Section 34-B and place it before the jurisdictional Magistrate for consideration under Section 9.

The agency may not ignore the warrant or act upon it directly by arresting the fugitive without judicial intervention.