New Delhi: A week after Indian national Nikhil Gupta was extradited to the United States, the Ministry of External Affairs said on June 21 that he has not sought consular access, although they are considering his family’s plea for assistance.
While he was arrested on arrival in Prague in June 2023, it took nearly a year for his case to wind through Czech judiciary, before ending at the Constitutional Court. Gupta’s extradition from the Czech Republic on June 14 was made public only three days later on June 17.
The Indian businessman is accused by US prosecutors of attempting to kill a US national – understood to be Khalistan activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, who India sees as a terrorist – by hiring a hitman. Sensationally, the indictment also alleged that the main mastermind was an Indian government official, who has been identified, but remains unnamed.
At the weekly media briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that the Indian government had “so far not received any request for consular access from Mr Gupta”. However, he revealed that the “family has got in touch with us and we are in touch with the family members and we are looking at the matter as to what can be done on their request”.
After appearing in a New York court, Gupta pleaded not guilty to the charges and was detained to custody.
As per the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the request for consular access must be initiated by the person in custody.
“Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action,” the treaty stated.
The Indian government previously stated that embassy officials had got consular access to Gupta three times while he was in Czech custody. This information was disclosed by the Ministry of External Affairs in December 2023 following a plea from Gupta’s family to the Indian Supreme Court, alleging that their requests for assistance from the MEA had been disregarded.
The family’s petition was dismissed by Supreme Court on grounds that it had no jurisdiction over the matter.
