Why did the UK High Court allow Sanjay Bhandari's appeal against extradition to India?

Sanjay Bhandari, an Indian resident and arms dealer/defence consultant, is accused of wilful tax evasion under Section 51 of the (Indian) Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act 2015 (“BMA”)  and related money laundering under Section 3 of the (Indian) Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (“PMLA”). The allegations involve failing to disclose foreign assets (including properties in Dubai and London, shares in UAE and Panama companies, and foreign bank accounts) worth approximately INR 6.66 billion (£64.8 million) in tax returns for assessment years 2012–2016, despite being liable for global taxation. Searches in April 2016 uncovered evidence, leading to admissions by Bhandari. The money laundering charge is predicated on the tax evasion as the "scheduled offence."

India issued two extradition requests (April 2020 for PMLA; June 2021 for BMA), certified by the UK. The extradition hearing before District Judge Snow in 2022 found a prima facie case and sent the matter to the Secretary of State, who ordered extradition in January 2023. India provided assurances, including detention in a specific cell in Tihar Jail (Central Jail No. 3, Ward No. 4) with amenities, no removal from prison for questioning (October 2022 assurance), and guarantees on conditions/security.

Issues

The appeal raised multiple grounds under the Extradition Act 2003:

• Dual criminality and prima facie case for the offences.
• Article 3 ECHR: Real risk of torture or inhuman/degrading treatment from (a) investigative agencies (e.g., CBI, Enforcement Directorate) during questioning, and (b) prison conditions in Tihar Jail (overcrowding, understaffing, violence, extortion).
• Article 6 ECHR: Flagrant denial of fair trial due to reverse burden of proof under Section 54 BMA (requiring the accused to disprove wilfulness beyond reasonable doubt).
• Article 5 ECHR: Risks from systemic delays and bail prohibitions.

The key questions were the adequacy of India's assurances to mitigate Article 3 risks and the compatibility of Indian statutory provisions with Convention rights.

Relevant UK Statutes 

• Extradition Act 2003 

• Article 3 of the ECHR

• Article 5 of the ECHR

• Article 6 of the ECHR

Decision

The High Court (Steyn J and Holroyde LJ) allowed the appeal on 28 February 2025, quashing the extradition order and discharging Bhandari. The court upheld Grounds 3 (Article 3) and 4 (Article 6), finding extradition barred. Other grounds (dual criminality, prima facie case for the BMA request, and Article 5) were dismissed. As the PMLA request depended on the BMA offence, both failed.

 Rationale for the Decision

The court conducted a de novo review, admitting fresh evidence post-dating the district judge's ruling. It accepted India's good faith in providing assurances but found them insufficient to eliminate real risks.

• Article 3 Risks: Substantial evidence showed endemic torture by investigative agencies (e.g., coerced confessions, per reports from NHRC, UNWGAD cases like Christian Michel and Jagtar Johal) and pervasive issues in Tihar Jail (overcrowding at ~300% capacity, severe understaffing, incidents like the 2023 murder of Tillu Tajpuriya — witnessed by inactive guards—and the 2021 beating death of Ankit Gujjar over extortion demands). The court held that the October 2022 assurance (questioning only in prison) did not mitigate risks, as mistreatment could occur there without inhibition, and prison staff were unlikely to intervene effectively due to systemic failures (e.g., staff complicity in extortion, ineffective CCTV). Quote: "the behaviour of not just one or two prison officials, but a large group of them, in standing by... while a prisoner was murdered... renders implausible the contention that prison officials would intervene."

• Article 6 Breach: Section 54 BMA's reverse burden—requiring the accused to prove lack of wilfulness beyond reasonable doubt on a core element of the offence (punishable by up to 10 years)—was deemed a flagrant denial of fair trial rights, incompatible with presumption of innocence.

 The judgment distinguished prior cases like Chawla (where assurances sufficed due to better conditions at the time) and heightened scrutiny of Indian prison assurances, citing worsened conditions and specific incidents.

 Citation: Bhandari v Government of India [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin)

Link to the full judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/449.html