The London High Court said it relied on the “quality of assurances” given by the Government of India in its note verbale while rejecting fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi’s petition to reopen his extradition case, officials said.
Modi, wanted in India in connection with a Rs 13,000-crore Punjab National Bank fraud, had sought to reopen his case following the judgment in fugitive economic offender Sanjay Bhandari’s case, where extradition was dropped over the possibility of torture by Indian agencies. The London High Court had discharged Bhandari from the extradition order on human rights grounds.
The Bench — Lord Justice Stuart Smith and Justice Jay of the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division — refused permission to reopen Modi’s case, citing the assurances in the Indian government’s note verbale. The court noted that when Modi’s case was heard in autumn 2022, the material underpinning the Bhandari decision was either not available or not brought to its attention. The Bhandari judgment, the court said, paints a worrying picture of proscribed treatment to obtain confessions, which was characterised as commonplace and endemic.
The court added that, but for the statements and assurances provided by the Government of India between September 2025 and February 2026, culminating in the note verbale, it would have been minded to reopen the appeal in the exercise of exceptional power.
The Bench rejected arguments of a “real risk of torture or other ill-treatment” during transfers from prison to the trial court in Mumbai, saying it had considered the assurances very carefully. While acknowledging concerns raised by Modi’s lawyer about some affidavit evidence coming from persons who, per the Bhandari judgment, may have condoned or ignored unacceptable detainee treatment, the court found the Indian assurances “specific and not general and vague.”
The Union Home Ministry had provided a detailed plan covering Modi’s detention at Arthur Road prison, the facilities he would have, and legal assistance available during trial. The court said the assurances were given by an official competent to bind the Government of India, as well as the State of Maharashtra and the five investigating agencies, which the court viewed as bound by the assurances’ terms.
Although India is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the Bench said it “did not doubt that torture is not permitted under Indian law.” The court concluded that the assurances are cognisable at a diplomatic level because any breach would severely damage mutual trust between India and the UK, particularly given Modi’s high-profile status.
The Crown Prosecution Service advocate, supported by a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) team, argued strongly against Modi’s reopening application. A CBI team, including investigating officers, travelled to London for the hearing. The CBI said the reopening application had been filed based on the Bhandari judgment but was successfully overcome through sustained and coordinated efforts.
The CBI has sought Modi’s extradition in connection with the PNB scam involving significant financial wrongdoing, with proceedings ongoing since 2018. UK courts approved Modi’s extradition after his 2019 arrest and rejected earlier appeals, finding no legal barriers and accepting assurances about his treatment in India.
Modi, alleged to have conspired with his uncle Mehul Choksi, has been in a UK prison since March 19, 2019. The CBI said Modi alone had siphoned off Rs 6,498.20 crore.
