When criminals commit heinous crimes or massive financial frauds in India and flee abroad, the damage they leave behind is not limited to their victims but it also shakes the foundations of the justice system itself. These absconders not only escape legal consequences but often mock the very machinery meant to bring them to justice, exploiting legal loopholes, diplomatic red tape and international indifference.
The recent arrest of fugitive jeweller Mehul Choksi in Belgium has once again spotlighted the glaring inefficiencies in India’s extradition efforts. Just days earlier, the United States handed over Tahawwur Rana, accused in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, a rare success that underscores how rare and difficult such victories
truly are.
Yet the names Nirav Modi, Vijay Mallya, and Lalit Modi continue to haunt Indian law enforcement. Each represents a saga of financial betrayal running into thousands of crores, and each has evaded Indian custody by retreating to the sanctuaries of nations with which India has long-standing but toothless extradition treaties.
The Nirav Modi case, in particular, illustrates the frustrating dance of diplomacy and delay. Despite a British court approving his extradition four years ago and dismissing his appeals, he remains out of reach. The irony is hard to miss: the rights of a financial fugitive seem to hold more weight than the rights of a nation defrauded.
Meanwhile, Choksi has spent the last seven years enjoying the protection of foreign soil, even flouting a Red Corner Notice. In 2021, when he attempted to flee from Antigua to Cuba, he was arrested in Dominica, only to sidestep extradition by claiming Antiguan citizenship and playing legal chess with local courts. Now, arrested in Belgium at India’s request, Choksi is again pulling legal levers; this time citing age, illness, and even marriage to a Belgian woman as reasons to block his return.
The reality is stark: despite extradition treaties with more than 50 countries, India has struggled to bring back even a handful of fugitives. The process is so slow and complex that in the 26 years following its 1992 agreement with the UK, India secured the extradition of just one individual; Sameerbhai Patel, accused in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
For one, extradition depends not just on bilateral treaties but on the political will and legal systems of host countries. If a fugitive is wanted in India but faces no criminal charges in the host country, the process becomes tangled in court battles. Local laws, humanitarian arguments, and even geopolitical relationships come into play. In Europe, decisions often require the green light from the European Court of Human Rights, which scrutinises everything. From the quality of the prison cell awaiting the accused to the risk of custodial torture.
This scrutiny may seem fair in isolation, but it creates fertile ground for manipulation. Fugitives often employ high-priced lawyers to delay, deflect, and derail proceedings , buying years, if not decades, of freedom.
Moreover, Britain has increasingly earned a reputation as a safe haven for white-collar criminals. Despite being bound by WTO rules and long-standing international agreements, its courts rarely approve extraditions to India. Economic crimes in an interconnected world should logically concern all nations, as their ripple effects cross borders. Yet, extradition remains mired in the inertia of national interests and bureaucratic caution.
India has raised this issue at global platforms like the G20, pushing for stronger, faster mechanisms to return economic offenders. These are not just India's problems. Any country could find itself the victim tomorrow. But until a coordinated global effort emerges, these criminals will continue to thrive in loopholes and technicalities.
What India needs now is a reinvigorated diplomatic push backed by legal reforms and international cooperation. There should be no comfort zone for fugitives, no corner of the globe where they can feel untouchable. Sovereignty must not be so easily outmaneuvered, and justice must not be so easily delayed.
The long arm of the law must not stop at the border. It must extend with resolve, reach with clarity, and grasp with unyielding force. Only then can faith in justice be truly restored.