The Kerala High Court has ruled that Indian authorities cannot ignore an international arrest warrant received through Interpol merely because the concerned foreign country has not yet submitted a formal request seeking extradition of the accused. The Court clarified that the process of arresting a fugitive in India and the subsequent process of extraditing that person to another country are legally distinct.

A Division Bench comprising Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta AK observed that Sections 4 and 8 of the Extradition Act, 1962 require a formal request through diplomatic channels when a foreign country seeks the surrender or extradition of a fugitive. However, such a formal request is not necessary where the immediate requirement is only to secure the arrest of the fugitive in India.

The Court further laid down the procedure to be followed by Indian authorities after receiving an international arrest warrant through Interpol. The nodal agency is required to forward the warrant to the Central Government, which may approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for a provisional arrest warrant under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act. The nodal agency must also inform the concerned Magistrate, who can independently consider issuing an arrest warrant under Section 9 of the Act. According to the Court, these processes may proceed simultaneously to prevent the fugitive from absconding.

At the same time, the Bench clarified that the nodal agency itself cannot arrest an individual merely on the basis of an international arrest warrant. Arrest must be authorised by a Magistrate in accordance with Indian law.

The ruling came in an appeal filed by NRI businessman Rakhul Krishnan concerning Sreejith Vijayan, who was accused of borrowing around 6 million UAE dirhams for a hotel business before leaving Dubai for India. A Dubai court subsequently convicted Vijayan and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. An international arrest warrant and Interpol Red Corner Notice were issued in May 2018, but Indian authorities did not act, citing the absence of a formal extradition request from the UAE.

Disagreeing with the broader approach adopted by the single judge, the Division Bench held that the CBI-NCB Interpol should at least have forwarded the international arrest warrant to the Central Government and the jurisdictional Magistrate. The appeal was ultimately disposed of as subsequent developments had rendered the relief sought infructuous, but the Court's directions will guide authorities in similar cases involving international fugitives. "Source"