Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) THE present petition has been filed by Mrs. Nina Pillai and her two minor sons, challenging the order dated 2-6-1995, passed under Section 5 of the Extradition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, appointing a Metropolitan Magistrate to conduct an enquiry into the case. The order had been passed pursuant to a letter of request received from Singapore High Commission for provisional arrest for purpose of extradition of late Mr. Janardhan Mohandass Rajan Pillai (hereinafter referred to in short as Mr. Rajan Pillai ). The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 2-6-1995.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in addition have sought a declaration that Section 5 of the Act to the extent it permits the issuance of an order for inquiry without complying with the principles of natural justice, is ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further that Sections 3,4,5,6 and 7 of the Act do not apply to the Indian citizens. In the alternative it is prayed, that if the said Sections are held to apply to Indian citizens,the same be declared unconstitutional being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 5,14,19 (1) (e) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE petitioners have impleaded besides Union of India as respondent No. 1, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the then Minister of External Affairs as respondent No. 2 and Mr. Oscar Kerkatta, Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs as respondent No. 3. It was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there was no occasion to implead the said respondent by name and in their personal capacity, specially when the only bald allegation in the petition as against the said respondents was "that the order has been passed malafide and their exist malice in fact and in law. " Learned counsel thereupon fairly conceded that the said respondents may be deleted from the array of respondents. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 are deleted from the array of respondents. Learned counsel fairly stated that she would not press for prayer E of this writ petition regarding a declaration to entitlement of punitive damages which the petitioners reserve their right to claim separately, if so entitled at Law.

( 4 ) BEFORE we deal with the various submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Indira Jai Singh, it would be pertinent to notice certain relevant dates.

( 5 ) LATE Mr. Rajan Pillai, an Indian citizen, was convicted in Singapore on 10-4-1995 for 24 offences punishable under the Singapore Penal Code. The case was adjourned, at the request of counsel for the accused, to hear arguments on the question of sentence. Mr. Rajan Pillai instead of presenting himself for receiving sentence, left Singapore and came to India very next date and sought anticipatory bail from the Bombay High Court, which was rejected by the High Court of Bombay. The High Commission of Singapore, in the meanwhile, on 19-4-1995 presented a letter of request and sought the provisional arrest for purposes of extradition of Mr. Rajan Pillai. The Union Government passed the order dated 2-6-1995, appointing a Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act to conduct an inquiry into the case and submit his report. This was followed by warrants of arrest, pursuant to which Mr. Rajan Pillai was arrested. It is the petitioners grievance that Mr. Rajan Pillai was denied proper medical facilities and was assaulted in jail, culminating in his death on 7-7-1995. A Commission of inquiry has already been set up and Ms. Leela Seth, former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh, is inquiring into the circumstances leading to the death of Mr. Rajan Pillai.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order dated 2-6-1995, hereinafter referred to as the impugned order, as being vitiated by non- application of mind and having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is the petitioner s contention that Section 5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document