* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 17.03.2026 Pronounced on: 08.04.2026 + W.P.(CRL) 3868/2025 CHRISTIAN MICHEL JAMES .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Aljo K.Joseph, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC with Mr.Kautilya Birat, GP for R-1 & 2.

Mr.D.P. Singh, ASG/Special Counsel with Mr.Manu Mishra, Mr.Iman Khera, Ms.Garima Saxena, Advs. for R-3 & 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:

“a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration that that the Article 17 of Indian UAE Extradition Treaty is ultra-virus Article 21, 245 and 253 of the Constitution of India to the extent the expression in Article 17 of the treaty “anything connected there with” gives liberty to the prosecution to read other offences and sections into the chargesheet filed against a fugitive Extradited from UAE, Ultra virus of Section 21 of the Extradition Act 1962.

b) Issue appropriate Writ order direction declaring that non application of the Section 21 of the Extradition Act and considering the provisions of treaty above the law made by Parliament under Article 245 of the Constitution of India violate the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution.

c) Issue appropriate writ order direction, in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble CBI Court and declare that the order passed by the CBI court Annexure P-15 is illegal and violative of Section 21 of the Extradition Act consequently declare that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner is illegal and direct the Trial Court to comply with the provisions of 436 A Cr.P.C.”

BRIEF FACTS:

2. A brief background of facts giving rise to the present petition is that the Central Bureau of Investigation („CBI‟), (respondent no.4 herein) registered RC No. 217-2013-A-0003 dated 12.03.2013 under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to „IPC‟) and Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging therein that Air Headquarters of the Indian Air Force, after obtaining approval from Raksha Mantri, issued Request for Proposal (hereinafter referred as „RFP‟) in March, 2002 to 11 vendors for procurement of eight helicopters for VVIPs thereby replacing the then existing MI-8 helicopters. Amongst others, Air HQ prescribed a mandatory altitude requirement of 6000 meters for such helicopters. Only four firms responded to the RFP, and three helicopters, namely MI-172, EC-225 and EH-101 (subsequently known as AW-101) were selected by the Technical Evaluation Committee for a flight evaluation. Out of the three, only MI-172 and EC-225 were flight evaluated as EH-101 (AW-101) could not be evaluated in view of the vendor stating that the helicopter was certified to fly upto an altitude of 4572 meters (15000 feet) only, as against the mandatory requirement of 6000 meters. Though makers of EH-101(AW-101) promised to produce certification to the effect that helicopter is capable of flying upto 6000 meters, they could not submit the same. As a consequence, two helicopters, namely MI-172 and EC-225, underwent flight trial. Out of these two, MI-172 did not conform to several mandatory parameters, however, EC-225 helicopters qualified under all the parameters during Field Evaluation Trial (hereinafter referred as „FET‟). The FET report was then sent to Ministry of Defence (hereinafter referred to as „MoD‟) in May, 2003 for approval.

3. It was further alleged that in June 2003, the Technical Manager (Air) in MoD asked Air HQ to reassess the EC-225 and also obtain the opinion of the Prime Minister's Office (hereinafter referred to as „PMO‟) with regard to the suitability of cabin height. In a meeting convened by the PMO on 19.11.2003 with representativ