Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. There is no denial of the fact that in the comity of nations in the world, our country commands a lot of respect and it is not only because of its rapid development which has taken place in the field of science and technology, but also for its principled stand which has been taken by the Government of India right after the independence. This stand of the Government of India, by not aligning with any of the group of super powers, by adopting the concept of Panchsheel and by adopting a neutral attitude on the world issues before various international foras and sending for peace keeping mission to different countries have all added and enhanced the prestige of the country and, therefore, if any assurance is given by the sovereign Government of India of the day that is taken very seriously in the countries of the world. Similarly, if the sovereign Government of India at a given point of time has given a solemn assurance to a Foreign State to extradite a criminal who was desperately wanted by our country for trial then we ought to have honoured that commitment. This was a political decision. In the instant case, none other than the then Deputy Prime Minster of India, Mr. L.K. Advani, had given solemn assurance to the sovereign Government of Portugal that in case the respondent/accused is extradited to India, he will be punished in accordance with the Extradition Order. Moreover, despite the fact that there was no Extradition Treaty between the two countries and by the fiction of law, the extradition was obtained by extending the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1962, therefore, the Court should have permitted that assurance to be adhered to and implemented. Otherwise, in case the prosecution is not permitted to be withdrawn in terms of the assurance given by the Government of India not only the stand of our Government in the international arena would have been falsified, but in future also the foreign countries will be loath to take our assurance seriously. There are the political implications which the country would have to face in the long run in case we do not adhere to the assurance which has been given to a sovereign government. The Designated Court has failed to appreciate this concern of the Government of India in making a request to the Special Public Prosecutor to seek withdrawal only because of this reason and which has been bonafidely approved by the Special Public Prosecutor. The Court's power was only supervisory in this regard. Therefore, this reasoning, which has been given by the Designated Court, is totally erroneous and deserves to be set aside.