Sanjay Bhandari v Government of India
| Judge | Lord Justice Holroyde,Mrs Justice Steyn |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin) |
| Date | 28 February 2025 |
| Counsel | Edward Fitzgerald Kc,James Stansfeld,Robbie Stern,Ben Keith,Alex Du Sautoy |
| Year | 2025 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin)
Case No: AC-2023-LON-000514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 28/02/2025
Before :
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
THE RT HON. LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE
THE HON. MRS JUSTICE STEYN DBE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
SANJAY BHANDARI Appellant
- and -
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edward Fitzgerald KC, James Stansfeld and Robbie Stern (instructed by Janes Solicitors
LLP) for the Appellant
Ben Keith and Alex du Sautoy (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) for the
Respondent
Hearing dates: 10, 11 & 12 December 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 28 February 2025 by circulation to
the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Bhandari v India
Lord Justice Holroyde and Mrs Justice Steyn:
Introduction
1. The Government of India (‘the respondent’) seeks the extradition of Mr Bhandari
(‘the appellant’) to India pursuant to two extradition requests. The first request was
issued on 15 April 2020 and certified by the Secretary of State for the Home
Department (‘the Secretary of State’) on 16 June 2020 (‘Request 1’). It concerns an
allegation of money laundering, contrary to s.3 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act 2002 (‘the PMLA’). The second request was issued on 2 June 2021
and certified by the Secretary of State on 18 June 2021 (‘Request 2’). It concerns an
allegation of wilfully attempting to evade a tax, penalty or interest chargeable or
imposable under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and
Imposition of Tax Act 2015 (‘the BMA’), contrary to s.51 of that Act. Both the
PMLA and the BMA are statutes enacted and in force in India.
2. The extradition hearing before District Judge (MC) Michael Snow (‘the District
Judge’) took place over eight days on 3-4 and 7-9 March, 29 September and 3-4
October 2022. On 7 November 2022, the District Judge handed down judgment,
Extradition Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’). On 12 January 2023, the Secretary of State
ordered the appellant’s extradition to India pursuant to s.93 of the 2003 Act.
3. This is an appeal against the District Judge’s judgment, brought with leave pursuant to
s.103 of the 2003 Act, on the grounds that the District Judge erred in concluding that:
i) the offences in both requests are extradition offences pursuant to s.78(4)(b) of
the 2003 Act;
iii) extradition is compatible with the appellant’s rights under article 3 of the
assurances given by the respondent in respect of (a) detention in Tihar prison
and (b) treatment by the police or other investigative bodies;
iv) extradition is compatible with the appellant’s rights under article 6 of the
in respect of burden and standard of proof in the criminal trials;
v) delays in the criminal justice system in India are not such as to render the
appellant’s extradition incompatible with article 5 of the ECHR; and
vi) the appellant does not face a statutory prohibition on the grant of bail such as
to render his extradition pursuant to Request 1 incompatible with article 5 of
the ECHR.
4. This is the judgment of the court. It has been written by Steyn J, with whom Holroyde
LJ agrees. The parties helpfully agreed a list of issues which we have set out below,
when addressing each ground. Mr Edward Fitzgerald KC and Mr Ben Keith, leading
Counsel for the appellant and respondent respectively, addressed us orally on grounds
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Bhandari v India
3-6; and Mr James Stansfeld and Mr Alex Du Sautoy, junior Counsel for the appellant
and respondent respectively, made oral submissions on grounds 1 and 2. We are
grateful to all Counsel for their excellent written and oral submissions.
The Requests
5. The offence of money laundering (alleged in Request 1) is predicated on commission
of the offence of tax evasion contrary to s.51 of the BMA (alleged in Request 2).
Accordingly, as the District Judge did, and the parties have done, we address Request
2 first.
The alleged offence under s.51 of the BMA (Request 2: tax evasion)
6. The conduct underlying the allegation of tax evasion is primarily summarised for the
respondent in the affidavit of Vivek Jumar Gupta, Additional Director of Income Tax,
Income Tax Department, dated 13 April 2021 (‘V.J. Gupta’), made in support of
Request 2. However, it is also addressed in the affidavit of Mahesh Gupta, Deputy
Director, Directorate of Enforcement, dated 25 February 2020 (‘Mahesh Gupta’),
made in support of Request 1; and we note the respondent relies on all the evidence it
has adduced in respect of both Requests.
7. The affidavit of V.J. Gupta states that, in addition to the offence under s.51 of the
BMA, the appellant is being prosecuted for two other offences pursuant to s.50 of the
BMA and s.277 of Income Tax Act 1977. V.J. Gupta states that the prosecution
pursuant to s.50 of the BMA “ deals with failure to furnish any information about
foreign assets or foreign income in the return of income filed in India ” (§7.1); while
the s.277 Income Tax Act prosecution “deals with offences related to making false
statements in verification etc.” ( §7.2) However, in Further Information from the
Income Tax Authorities dated 28 February 2022, the respondent clarified that the
current extradition request pertains only to the alleged offence under section 51(1) of
the BMA.
8. V.J Gupta states that a Prosecution Complaint under s.51(1) of the BMA (no.
2121/2019) was filed by the Income Tax Authorities against Mr Bhandari before the
Court of Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, New Delhi on 24
December 2018 (‘the Prosecution Complaint’).
9. The appellant was an Indian resident at the relevant time, as reflected in his income
tax returns (V.J. Gupta, §4.1). As an Indian resident, his global income was liable to
be taxed in India, and he was required to declare his global income and assets by s.6
of the Income Tax Act 1961 (V.J. Gupta, §4.1; Further Information regarding prima
facie case, §V.1). In his income tax returns for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-
2016, the appellant declared in Schedule FA of ITR-4 that he had “ Nil” foreign assets,
and thus, it is alleged, wilfully not disclosing the “huge foreign assets” he had
amassed (V.J Gupta, §4.1; Complaint, §3).
10. A significant number of undisclosed foreign assets, both moveable and immoveable,
are alleged to have been acquired by the appellant from undisclosed foreign income.
The assets allegedly obtained by the appellant are identified by V.J. Gupta at
paragraph 4.6 of his affidavit as including the following immoveable properties:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting