London/New Delhi: The Westminister Magistrates’ Court in London on Monday ruled that liquor baron Vijay Mallya be extradited to India, in a development that will be seen as a victory for Indian investigative agencies.
The former Kingfisher Airlines boss, who has been on bail since his arrest over an extradition warrant in April 2017, is perhaps India’s most notorious economic offender. He is wanted for charges of alleged bank fraud and money laundering to the tune of over Rs 9,000 crore.
“I find a prima facie case of conspiracy to defraud the loans,” said Judge Emma Arbuthnot in her ruling, adding that there was “no sign of a false case being mounted against him”.
“Having considered evidence as a whole. There is a case to answer,” Judge Arbuthnot said as she ruled that 62-year-old Mallya could be extradited to India to stand trial on the charges brought by the CBI and the ED.
In relation to the defence’s attempts to dispute Indian prison conditions as a bar to Mallya’s extradition on human rights grounds, the judge said the video of the Barrack 12 of Mumbai’s Arthur Road Jail, where Mallya would be held, “gives accurate portrayal and has been recently redecorated”.
“He will have access to personal medical care to manage his diabetes and coronary problems… There was no ground at all to believe that he faces any risk at all [in jail],” the judge ruled.
Hailing the UK court order on Mallya’s extradition, finance minister Arun Jaitley said the offender who “benefited during the UPA rule” is being brought to the book by the NDA government.
“Great Day for India. No one who cheats India will go scot free. The Judgement of UK’s Court is welcome. An offender benefited during the UPA. The NDA brings him to book,” Jaitley said in a tweet.
It’s not clear if Mallya will be sent to India immediately though, as the appeals process could take another few months if not a year.
Mallya’s case will now be sent to UK home secretary Sajid Javid. According to British law, Mallya will have 14 days to make an application for permission to appeal to a UK high court.
Also read: Plans of a Swanky Prison Cell for Vijay Mallya Violate Equality Before Law
As per UK’s 2003 Extradition Act, India is a ‘category 2’ country, which requires assent for extradition from both the judiciary and the secretary of state.
Once a court decides that a person can be extradited, the secretary of state has to order extradition within two months, though extensions can be sought from the high court.
If the secretary of state does not take a decision within two months, the person could be discharged.
If there is no appeal, Mallya has to be extradited within 28 days of the secretary of state’s decision.
The trial, which started a year ago in December 2017, has gone through a number of hearings beyond the initial eight days earmarked for it.
It first opened with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) team – led by Mark Summers – laying out the Modi government’s prima facie case of fraud and money laundering against Mallya.
Summers sought to establish a “blueprint of dishonesty” against the businessman and that there are no bars to his extradition on human rights grounds.
Mallya’s defence team, led by Clare Montgomery, deposed a series of experts in an attempt to prove that the erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines’s alleged default of bank loans was the result of business failure rather than “dishonest” and “fraudulent” activity by its owner.
The court was also told that a consortium of Indian banks, led by State Bank of India (SBI), had rejected an offer by the liquor baron in early 2016 to pay back nearly 80% of the principal loan amount owed to them.
Also read: Politically Motivated Factors Interfered With Efforts to Settle Loan Dues: Vijay Mallya
On the prime facie case
District Judge Arbuthnot admitted that there is “no sign that this is a false case” and if the criteria would have been applied and background checks done, then the loan would not have been granted showing a “catalogue of failures of banks at different levels”. A key moment during the hearings had seen the judge comment that banks had “broken rules” while sanctioning the loan to Mallya.
She also called Mallya a “glamorous flashy billionaire playboy who used his charm” to make the banks fail and agreed that Mallya “is trying to avoid his responsibilities under the guarantee”
The CPS has argued that Mallya employed fraudulent methods to secure the bank loan and had no intention to repay it. Montgomery had denied these allegations and put evidence before the court that Mallya had put in his personal funds to try to save Kingfisher Airlines. However, it was the economic downturn in the aviation sector brought about by rising fuel costs that led to Kingfisher’s mounting losses and subsequent closure. She also raised issues with the CPS witness testimonies as they were “identical with even same spelling and grammatical mistakes”.
On the conditions of Indian jails
In another startling boost for Indian jails, the judge, after carefully examining the photographs and videos of Barrack 12 at Arthur Road jail, was convinced that “there are no grounds at all” that Mallya’s condition in jail will be in breach of Article 3 of ECHR.
Summers had asserted that “there was no overcrowding in Barrack 12” as the unit is not a part of the main prison. He had reiterated that there would be enough light and air coming through the windows and Mallya would be provided with a western toilet with washing facilities.
Montgomery had argued that “the whole barrack is enclosed in a steel box” and it is “impenetrable to natural light”. She alleged that the photos and videos were “staged”. Prison expert Alan Mitchell, brought in as an expert on jail conditions in India, had told that court that prisons in India did not meet with Article 3 of the European Human Rights Commission and would thus breach Mallya’s human rights.
Also read: Full Text: Vijay Mallya’s Extradition Order
The judge was convinced that the cell received “enough light and air”, the toilet and washing facilities were adequate and a “bed along with home-cooked food” should be sufficient to ensure Mallya’s health. She also believed that Mallya should be allowed to consult his own doctors who can monitor any health concerns he may have. The judge also accepted assurances given by India on his treatment in Indian jails.
On Mallya’s assertion of a political vendetta
Mallya had earlier told the court that he feared a return to India as he was convinced that he would not receive justice due to political pressure.
The judge did not accept Mallya’s “political vendetta” argument, saying: “I do not accept the courts in India are there to do what politicians tell them to do”.
Mallya could now appeal the decision of the court in High Court of London. After the HC decision, the case files go to the home secretary who will have to sanction his extradition before Mallya can be sent to India, making his return a long and tedious process. Nevertheless, this is a huge victory for India, one that has definitely made the liquor baron nervous as he still remains in court discussing the next move with his legal team.
Ruhi Khan is a journalist and social scientist based in London. She tweets @khanruhi.