Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9106
Reserved on : 17.03.2025 Pronounced on : 29.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.2632 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. MANOJ THANDASERRY DHARMAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O DHARMAN R/AT VIHAR LAYOUT
1-189/D, SOWPARNIKA NAVAGIRINAGAR, HOSBETTU SURATHKAL, MANGALRUU, S.K. - 575 014.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NEW DELHI – 110 001.
2 . THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR)
NATIONAL CENTRAL BUREAU [INTERPOL]
PLOT NO.5-B, 6 TH FLOOR A-WING, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 003.
3 . BUREAU OF IMMIGARATION MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT EAST BLOCK VIII, LEVEL-V SECTOR-1, R.K.PURAM NEW DELHI – 110 001 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL. PP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF COERCIVE ORDER/ARREST WARRANT/TRAVEL BAN AGAINST HIM ORIGINATING EITHER FROM INTERPOL OR UAE OR ANY INTERNATIONAL BODY, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 THROUGH EMAIL DATED 14-11-2024 AND 22/01/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND F.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
A Red Corner Notice issued by Interpol does not authorize arrest in India without an extradition request, affirming the necessity of adherence to domestic laws regarding extradition.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition for direction to furnish information regarding issuance of coercive orders against the petitioner - The petitioner seeks to clear his name from a Red Corner Notice issued by Interpol at the request of UAE authorities - The petitioner claims violation of his fundamental rights due to non-disclosure of information regarding adverse entries against him. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Extradition Act, 1962 - Application of the Act - The court noted that a Red Corner Notice does not equate to a warrant of arrest and cannot be executed without an extradition request from the foreign country. (Paras 35-39)
(C) Legal principles - A Red Corner Notice is advisory in nature and does not authorize arrest without an endorsed warrant under the Extradition Act. (Paras 59-66)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Indian citizen and managing director of a company in UAE, faced financial issues leading to civil proceedings and subsequent issuance of a Red Corner Notice by Interpol at the request of UAE courts. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court held that there was no extradition request from UAE and therefore no basis for the Red Corner Notice to affect the petitioner’s travel rights. (Paras 12-14)
Issues: Whether the issuance of a Red Corner Notice against the petitioner is valid without an extradition request and whether the petitioner was denied his fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a Red Corner Notice does not constitute a legal basis for arrest in India without a formal extradition request, affirming that the petitioner’s rights were not violated in this instance.
Result: Writ petition rejected.
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to furnish all relevant information and documents to him regarding issuance of a coercive order or travel ban originating from Interpol or any international body. As a consequence, he seeks deletion of his name or immediate withdrawal of any entry concerning travel ban issued by Interpol or International Authorities.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner is a citizen of India holding an Indian passport valid upto 21-10-2029 issued by the Consulate General of India at Dubai. The petitioner has expertise in designing, equipping and constructing hospitals and is said to be employed in the United Arab Emirates from 1992 to 2021. The petitioner is the shareholder- Authorised Signatory and Managing Director of one Limited Liability Company named Modular Concepts LLC, Dubai (‘the Company’ for short). The Company is involved in equipping of hospitals in the Middle East countries.
3. From the year 2020 the Company is said to have faced financial problems as several creditors had defaulted in paying dues to the Company and the Company had to face civil proceedings for enforcement of contractual obligations for recovery of money in UAE. The civil proceedings were initiated before Courts at United Arab Emirates (hereinafter referred to as ‘UAE’ for short). It is averred that trial had been conducted in the absence of the petitioner and judgments were passed against the Company and the petitioner, as he was the Authorized Signatory. The further averment in the petition is that proceedings that were initiated and concluded ex parte were for recovery of money and dishonor of cheque drawn on behalf of the Company. In terms of the judgments rendered, the Courts at UAE issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and requested the Interpol to issue a Red Corner Notice/Warrant for arrest of the petitioner.
4. It is the averment in the petition that Interpol accepted the requisition of UAE for enforcing the arrest warrant and consequently issued a Red Corner Notice for arrest and securing the presence of the petitioner. Since the petitioner would not be able to travel in the light of Red Corner Notice and the communication of Interpol, he is at doors of this Court seeking the aforesaid prayer.
5. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri Rahul Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has credible information that attempts are being made to use criminal machinery against him to arm-twist him for recovery of alleged financial dues for which warrants have been issued in the form of Red Corner Notices. It is his submission that the authorities at UAE have addressed international agencies like Interpol to trace the petitioner. The petitioner is not informed of any communication, but the Central Bureau of Investigation has received communication from Interpol and is keeping it without divulging the same to the petitioner in violation of his fundamental right, as adverse entries would be made against him in the system. It is his submission that the petitioner was not informed of making any entry and no opportunity to show cause was ever issued to him. If an adverse entry is made, the petitioner would not be able to travel beyond the shores of the nation. It is his averment that a Red Corner Notice or a communication from Interpol can be executed only if there exists an extraditable offence involving the petitioner. He would submit that no warrant is issued in any Court in India and unilateral debarment of the petitioner from travelling abroad would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
7. The learned senior counsel would further submit that an ex parte judgment, in a criminal case of another c
