UK Steps Up Pressure on India over Christian Michel, Now in 7th Year of Detention Without Trial

London: British foreign secretary Yvette Cooper raised the case of Briton Christian Michel’s detention in India for nearly seven years without trial when she encountered Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar at the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Canada on November 11.

This followed Prime Minister Keir Starmer raising Michel’s plight with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi for a second time on October 9 when the two met in Mumbai, according to the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO). Starmer had first brought up the issue on July 24 when Modi visited Britain for the announcement of the UK-India trade agreement.

In revealing the moves by Starmer and Cooper, the FCDO asserted: “The UK Government continues to raise Mr Michel’s case with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, pressing for progress and a resolution. We remain committed to doing so until the case is resolved.”

Whitehall appears to have changed policy by stepping up pressure on South Block over Michel’s plight after years of apathy by successive Conservative governments. Britain, now governed by the Labour Party, has in Starmer a former human rights lawyer at its helm. Cooper is a seasoned politician who has been an MP since 1997.

Background to the case

In 2010, the Congress-led government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ordered a dozen AW101 helicopters for VVIP use, made in England by AgustaWestland, then a subsidiary of the Italian firm Finmeccanica. The decision had the approval granted by BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s national security adviser and principal secretary, Brajesh Mishra.

However, in 2013, India’s defence minister A.K. Antony ordered an investigation into allegations that $30 million in bribes had been paid to secure the contract. On January 1, 2014, the Singh administration terminated the US$753 million deal.

Two senior Finmeccanica executives, Giuseppe Orsi and Bruno Spagnolini, were accused of wrongdoing. In a final appeals court judgment in Italy in 2018, they were acquitted on the grounds of “insufficient evidence that the facts [of culpability] exist”.

Regarding Michel, a consultant to Finmeccanica who was not an accused in the case, the judges observed that “the investigation has not revealed any role attributable to Michel in the phase relating to determination of the operational requirements of any contract [direct or indirect]”.

The Government of India was a party to the Italian court proceedings and was therefore bound by the verdict. However, the Modi government ignored the outcome and obtained Michel’s extradition from Dubai, where he was based. On December 4, 2018, he was flown to Delhi.

UN ruling on arbitrary detention

A United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) in its opinion circulated on November 27, 2020 said: “Regarding the United Arab Emirates: The deprivation of liberty of Christian James Michel by the Government of the United Arab Emirates [was] in contravention of Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…”

Indeed, Michel’s transportation from Dubai to Delhi was more a rendition than a lawful extradition.

Next week, Michel will complete seven years in custody, mostly at Delhi’s Tihar Jail. This period would have been the maximum sentence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the basis of the charge against him and India’s extradition request to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

However, he was subsequently slapped with a supplementary charge under Section 467 of the IPC, which can carry a life sentence.

Allegations of coercion and quid pro quo

In a letter to special judge Sanjay Jindal at the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in New Delhi on November 4 – apparently at the judge’s suggestion – Michel made serious allegations about his extradition.

He stated: “Within seven days of [Dubai Princess] Latifa’s kidnapping by Indian marine commandos and her return by the Government of India from the territory of India to Dubai, UAE, the Indian Embassy responded to the Dubai Public Prosecutor and re-dated/reinstated my extradition request.”

Princess Latifa had daringly escaped from her father, Dubai ruler Sheikh Maktoum, on a yacht, only to be captured by Indian commandos in the Arabian Sea.

Michel wrote: “In April [2018] the Dubai Prosecutor met me & told me I would be taken to India & that a deal had been done [a quid pro quo in lieu of Latifa being returned by India]. I [was given] my passport & money back [and was told] I should leave Dubai now.” Michel, however, refused to flee.

Michel’s Italian lawyer Rosemary Patrizi confirmed his account.

More seriously, he informed the judge about a meeting in May 2018: “I was called to a meeting with the Dubai authorities. One Indian official Mr Rakesh Asthana, Special Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, India, Colonel Waleed, CID Dubai & my lawyer Binsuwaidan.”

“At the meeting Mr Asthana stated to me in front of the UAE officials & my lawyer openly that: unless I sign a confession naming Sonia & Rahul Gandhi along with [Indian] Congress [party] leader Ahmed Patel in a corruption case, I will be taken to India [and] put in jail for a long time. If one day I get bail [he said] ‘we will keep you in India for 20 years as the trial will take that long’. He gave me a 20 odd page confession to read. If I signed I would be made a witness and I won’t have to go to India & my Red [Corner] Notice [issued by Interpol at India’s request] would be removed.”

“Over three separate meetings it was made clear to me this was all about Latifa, and ‘the law will not save me if I don’t sign’. I refused to sign. I was arrested & put in jail [in Dubai]. The first cassation court refused my extradition. Within 7 days a new cassation court was ordered to re-hear the extradition request. An order for my extradition was given … I was blindfolded, handcuffed and pushed onto a private jet.”

Asked for his response to Michel's allegations, Rakesh Asthana told The Wire the claims were untrue: “He is telling a lie. Whatever is being mentioned about me and my meeting him is a lie,” he said in a text message. Asked to clarify whether he had ever met Michel in Dubai, Asthana wrote, "I have made myself clear, There was no meeting.”

Asthana was moved from the CBI to head the Directorate General of Civil Aviation in 2019 and also the Narcotics Control Bureau. He subsequently went on to head the Border Security Force, eventually retiring from government service as Delhi's commissioner of police in July 2022.

Michel pleaded with the judge: “All I am asking for is a copy of my extradition request, so that my lawyer & I can work out for what offences I was extradited for, which must be my right.” The CBI has apparently refrained from sharing a copy of its extradition request to UAE authorities, which Michel’s lawyers argue would demonstrate it is in violation of Section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962.

WGAD recorded in its 2020 opinion: “The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be for the Government of India to release Mr Michel immediately.” The Indian Ministry of External Affairs reacted by saying this was not legally binding on India.

Supreme Court and legal contradictions

In February 2023, an Indian Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud cited Article 17 of the Extradition Treaty between India and the UAE, which states “it is evident that the person to be extradited shall not be tried or punished in the requesting State [India] except for offences for which his extradition [took place] or for offences connected therewith”.

The bench also quoted Section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962, which states that an extradited person shall not be tried in India for an offence other than “the extradition offence in relation to which he was surrendered or returned” or “the offence in respect of which the foreign State [the UAE] has given its consent”.

Despite referring to the Treaty and the Act, Justice Chandrachud and his fellow judges deferred to the post-extradition accusation under Section 467, which, arguably, contravenes the Indian Extradition Act.

Current legal proceedings

This week, a petition moved by Michel’s Indian lawyer Aljo Joseph against the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of External Affairs, the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement was heard by a two-member bench of the Delhi high court.

Filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers a high court to enforce fundamental rights, the petition prompted the court to order all four parties to respond. The next hearing is listed for January 9 – more than a month after Michel will have served his full sentence under Section 420 of the IPC.

The petition seeks a declaration that Article 17 of the India-UAE Extradition Treaty is ultra vires – i.e., beyond the legal authority of – Articles 21, 245 and 253 of the Constitution of India to the extent of the expression “offences connected therewith”.

Joseph contended this gave “liberty to the prosecution to read other offences and sections into the charge-sheet filed against a fugitive extradited from [the] UAE, violative of Section 21 of the [Indian] Extradition Act 1962 and curtails liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.

The external affairs ministry was asked to comment but didn’t do so.

Bail conditions can’t be fulfilled

Every other accused in the case was released on bail within days, weeks or months of being charged by the CBI. Michel was granted conditional bail only this year, allegedly because he was “a flight risk”.

He has submitted to the court that he cannot fulfil the requirement to deposit his passport, as this document has expired and the British high commission in Delhi will not renew it without him providing a permanent address in his application. He says he doesn’t have one at present.

He obviously did not flee Dubai in 2018 when he could have – when there was, in fact, little likelihood of any European Union country, including Britain [which was then an EU member], disregarding the Italian appeals court judgement and handing him over to Indian authorities. His Paris-based former wife Valerie Michel remarked: “Christian loves India; he’s spent a significant part of his life there.”

The FCDO reiterated: “We will continue to raise Mr Michel’s case with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity.”

Ashis Ray can be followed on X @ashiscray.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.