The Kerala High Court has clarified how Indian authorities must act when an International arrest warrant issued by a foreign treaty State is received through Interpol. The Division Bench Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. held that such a warrant cannot simply be ignored, though the authorities cannot directly arrest a person without the intervention of a Judicial Magistrate.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute between Rakhul Krishnan, an NRI businessman, and the eighth respondent, who had allegedly borrowed around 6 million UAE dirhams from Krishnan for augmenting finances for a hotel business in which he was a partner. The amount was promised to be returned by June 10, 2015. According to Krishnan, the eighth respondent thereafter left Dubai for India without repaying the amount. A personal guarantee cheque for 6 million UAE dirhams issued on April 1, 2016, was also dishonoured.
Krishnan subsequently initiated criminal proceedings against the eighth respondent before the Naif Police Station in Dubai. The Dubai Court later convicted the eighth respondent and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. After finding that he had absconded from Dubai, Krishnan approached the authorities there for an Interpol Red Corner Notice and an International arrest warrant. An International arrest warrant was issued on May 16, 2018, and was transmitted through Interpol to India's nodal agency.
Krishnan then approached the Kerala High Court seeking directions to the Union authorities to implement the arrest warrant under the Extradition Act, 1962, and the India-UAE Extradition Treaty, and to arrest and hand over the eighth respondent to the Government of Dubai. The Union and State authorities contended that Article 5 of the treaty required a formal extradition request through diplomatic channels. The Single Judge accepted this position and held that the mere issuance of an International arrest warrant was not sufficient to arrest and extradite a person from India.
Court's Observation
The Division Bench explained that the India-UAE Extradition Treaty and the Extradition Act, 1962 distinguish between a formal request for extradition and an urgent request for the immediate arrest of a fugitive. While a formal extradition request must be made through diplomatic channels, an urgent request for immediate arrest can be communicated through Interpol. The Court also noted that Sections 9 and 34-B of the Extradition Act provide separate legal routes for such an arrest.
The Court observed,
"The Nodal Agency ought to have found that the request for immediate arrest of the fugitive criminal did not have to be routed through diplomatic channels and could have been routed through Interpol."
It held that when an International arrest warrant from a foreign treaty State is received through Interpol, the Indian nodal agency must immediately inform the Central Government and the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Magistrate can independently consider issuing a warrant under Section 9, while the Central Government can consider seeking a provisional warrant under Section 34-B.
The Bench further made it clear that these two courses of action can proceed simultaneously. The nodal agency cannot directly arrest a fugitive merely on the basis of an International arrest warrant; judicial intervention is required. At the same time, the agency cannot simply ignore or keep such a warrant without forwarding it to the Central Government and the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Court said that Section 9 provides an interim, judicially sanctioned power of arrest while the regular extradition process is pursued through the Central Government.
Decision
The High Court clarified that these two courses can operate simultaneously and that the nodal agency cannot directly arrest a fugitive solely on the basis of an International arrest warrant. Judicial Magistrate intervention remains necessary.
Since subsequent developments had rendered the appellant's original prayers infructuous, the Court disposed of the writ appeal, making the clarification applicable as guidance for future cases.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rakhul Krishnan v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: W.A. No. 350 of 2021
Judge: Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K.
Decision Date: September 8, 2026
-300x169.webp)
