Mehul Choksi Awaits Verdict on Legality of Arrest

Antwerp/Brussels: On December 9, the Belgian Court of Cassation, which is roughly the country’s supreme court, will hear and perhaps also adjudicate on whether Mehul Choksi, a jewellery magnate of Indian origin, should have been arrested in Belgium at the request of the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is seeking his extradition to India.

Choksi, a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda, is currently imprisoned in Antwerp. The impression created by a wide section of the Indian media – on the basis of ‘anonymous’ briefings apparently by the CBI – is that the extradition has been approved by Belgium and his arrival in India is imminent. Some Indian media outlets in their excitement have carried stories about a cell at Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail where Choksi will purportedly be lodged. This is tantamount to trial by media, something that is generally frowned upon by European courts and which could potentially jeopardise India’s efforts to bring Choksi back.

Until February 2018 – when it was forced to close business - Gitanjali Group had around 4,000 retail outlets in India. Choksi, its owner, was at that point accused by the CBI of defrauding Punjab National Bank of more than Rs 6,000 crore. He denies the charge and accuses Indian law enforcement bodies of arbitrarily shutting his venture.

Belgian advocate-general's view

The Belgian advocaat-generaal (advocate-general), Ken Witpas, painted the true picture of Choksi’s extradition status and made it clear there’s some way to go in judicial and executive proceedings in Belgium before Choksi can be sent back to India, if at all.

Answering questions, Witpas cited a statement put out by him in October to one or more Indian news outlets, which said that on the 17th of that month the ‘Chamber of Accusation, part of the Antwerp Court of Appeal, rendered a judgement concerning the execution of two Indian arrest warrants issued against Mr Choksi by the Mumbai Special Judge (of the Central Bureau of Investigation) on May 23, 2018, and June 15, 2021’. He further clarified in the statement, ‘This judgement was rendered on the appeal of Mr Choksi himself against an earlier (Belgian) ruling on November 29, 2024.’

Witpas stressed, ‘Two things need to be seen separately: (1) the extradition itself and (2) the question whether a person, whose extradition is asked, needs to be detained during his extradition procedure.’

In effect, Choksi’s case is at the stage of Belgian courts examining whether his arrest in April this year was lawful. The extradition proceedings will begin only after the legality or otherwise of his arrest has been finally disposed of.

Choksi, who is lodged in a mid-19^th century inner city penitentiary, had 15 days to challenge the October Court of Accusation order upholding his arrest; which he did.

Witpas explained, ‘The appeal against this decision, which is now indeed being contested before the Court of Cassation (in the Belgian capital of Brussels), is therefore strictly limited to the decision concerning the execution of the two Indian arrest warrants.’

He added, ‘The Court of Cassation is not a second court of appeal that oversees and assesses the whole case (factual elements for example), it only assesses the legality of a judicial decision taken by a court judge (or whether the facts presented by the two sides merited the judgement reached).’ That denotes no new evidence will be considered by it.

Witpas clarified that if the Brussels court annuls the Antwerp court decision, then either the Antwerp court with a different set of judges will reconsider the matter or another regional court in Gent or Brussels will hear it. If, on the other hand, the Court of Cassation agrees with the Antwerp court’s ruling, then extradition hearings will thereafter begin in Antwerp.

Witpas revealed that in accordance with the Belgian system, its courts ‘will give a non-binding advice to the executive power (the Belgian government), who will finally decide whether Mr Choksi can or cannot be extradited to the Republic of India’.

At the same time, Choksi’s continued detention would have to adhere to human rights obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights. In short, it would be exceptional to hold him in custody for an alleged economic offence for more than a year.

This author has reached out to the Central Bureau of Investigation for comment. Their response will be added when received.

Choksi’s lawyers' view

Choksi’s petition at the Court of Cassation was submitted by one of Belgium’s most formidable human rights advocates, Christophe Marchand, who has a reputation of not accepting briefs unless he is convinced there’s a reasonable prospect of winning.

One of Choksi’s other lawyers, John Maes, said there are four levels of judicial determination of extradition cases in Belgium. In Choksi’s matter, the first will be in Antwerp, followed by the Court of Cassation in Brussels, then at the Council of State (the supreme administrative court in Belgium) and finally at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – since Belgium is a member of the European Union (EU).

In the case of an Indian arms dealer, Sanjay Bhandari, also wanted in India, the Court of Appeal in London rejected the Indian application on the grounds that Indian investigators and prisons torture detainees and India is yet to ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture. The case did not even advance to the UK’s Supreme Court, let alone the ECHR, to which Britain remains a signatory despite exiting the EU.

India’s request and Belgium’s delay

India’s request for Choksi’s extradition is based on an early 20th century extradition treaty between Britain and Belgium, adopted by independent India in 1954. A clause in the treaty does cover ‘fraud’ as an extraditable offence.

However, there’s speculation in Belgian political circles as to why it took their authorities eight months to act on India’s request concerning Choksi. The Indian communication was sent in August 2024; but his detention did not occur until April 2025. Questions have arisen as to whether the Belgian government was persuaded to act only after receiving an incentive.

In March 2025, a Belgian Economic Mission, led by Princess Astrid – sister of the Belgian monarch, King Philippe – visited India. It returned with a bagful of lucrative defence agreements. These included the supply of 105mm gun turrets and advanced sensors for the Zorawar light tanks being developed in India for the Indian Army and 70mm rocket systems for the Indian Army’s helicopters.

Setbacks in case

The CBI has also concealed from the Indian public setbacks suffered by India – relating to Choksi being kidnapped and tortured in the Caribbean in 2021, allegedly by agents of Indian authorities, while are likely to be highlighted in Choksi's argument in the extradition hearings in Belgium.

In its judgement in October, the Antwerp court rejected Choksi’s plea that Interpol had withdrawn its Red Corner Notice against him in 2023 and so he should not have been arrested in Belgium. His lawyers argued that Interpol cancelled the Red Corner Notice because it was convinced Indian agencies were behind his kidnapping and torture in the Caribbean in 2021. Developments which have newly surfaced appear to reinforce Choksi's position.

UK probe 

It is reliably learned Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) has commenced a probe into the alleged kidnap and torture of Choksi; and the UK Crown Prosecution Service is said to have requested its Belgian counterpart to record a statement from Choksi on the subject. Officially, though, the NCA trotted out its standard line that it ‘does not routinely confirm or deny the existence of investigations'.

Antigua and Barbuda, from where Choksi says he was kidnapped, is defined in Britain as a ‘country of the realm’ or one which has the British sovereign King Charles III as its head of state. The Antiguan police came to the conclusion shortly after the incident that Choksi had indeed been abducted and sought the kidnappers' arrest for questioning. At the time of the alleged crime, the gang of five who were said to be involved in it were either British nationals or resident in Britain. Two of them were of Indian origin and another a British Indian. One of the others, a woman, was a Hungarian citizen.

IACHR admitted Choksi’s claim

It has also now come to light that Choksi’s claim of kidnapping and torture was admitted by the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 2023, following petitions by Choksi against Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica.

The IACHR’s decision on Antigua and Barbuda was, ‘To find the instant petition admissible in relation to Articles I (“Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.”), XXV (“No person may be deprived of his liberty except in the cases and according to the procedures established by pre-existing law.”), and XXVI (“Every accused person is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. Every person accused of an offence has the right to be given an impartial and public hearing, and to be tried by courts previously established in accordance with pre-existing laws, and not receive cruel, infamous or unusual punishment.”) of the American Declaration (on the Rights and Duties of Man by the Organisation of American States [OAS]).’

In respect of Dominica, the decision was, ‘1. To find the instant petition admissible in relation to Articles 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial), and 25 (judicial protection) in relation to Articles 1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (“Where the exercise of any of the rights of freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the State Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.”) of the American Convention (on Human Rights of the OAS) with respect to the alleged failure to conduct an investigation into the alleged abduction and mistreatment. 2. To find the instant petition inadmissible in relation to the claims regarding the circumstances of the detention and alleged lack of medical treatment.’

What the decisions underline is both Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica were in violation of their obligations under the OAS’s Declaration and Convention on human rights. By virtue of these ruling, Choksi can escalate his complaint to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which in the Americas fulfils the role of the ECHR. It would be terribly embarrassing for India if the two island states are compelled to disclose the alleged Indian agents' role in the episode.

Dominica’s admission

Following the conclusion reached by the IACHR, the Dominican government in September 2025 in a statement through its lawyers admitted Choksi ‘was forcibly brought from Antigua to Dominica and was accordingly not in Dominica by his own voluntary act’. This explodes the stories put out by Indian agencies in 2021 that Choksi was apprehended in Dominica while attempting to escape to Cuba.

Choksi’s charge against Modi government     

Last but not the least, in June 2025 the high court of England and Wales in London allowed a civil suit by Choksi, which charged the Indian government and five individuals with kidnapping and torturing him in the Caribbean in 2021.

Curiously, one of the defendants described as ‘D2’ in court documents, a man of Indian descent, became high commissioner of St Kitts and Nevis in Delhi just weeks before the London hearing, with his mission rather unusually housed in an ‘upper ground floor’ of a south Delhi building.

This is probably the first instance of a small island state in the West Indies – which generally don’t have the means to afford diplomatic premises in faraway India - establishing an embassy or high commission in the Indian capital. Historically, only Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana have had such representation in Delhi.

St Kitts and Nevis has an estimated population of 52,600. Its GDP in 2024 was US$1.16 billion, which is one of the most modest in the region.

D2, like the Indian government, sought diplomatic immunity at the hearing in the high court in London in June. Justice Clive Freedman rejected the prayer. The case will next be heard later this month.

This author reached out to the Ministry of External Affairs and its comment will be added to the piece if it is received.

Amit Shah: ‘Trial in Absentia’

Meanwhile, an address by Union home minister Amit Shah on October 16 suggested he might have given up on bringing back alleged fugitives from justice who are located abroad. An Indian Press Information Bureau (PIB) release said he told a CBI conference on ‘Extradition of Fugitives’, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provides for ‘trial in absentia’. Sections 355 and 356 of the BNSS do indeed provide for this under specific conditions.

The PIB note observed, ‘Shri Shah explained that if a person is declared a fugitive, the court can proceed with the trial even in their absence, by appointing a lawyer to represent them… He emphasised that the provision of Trial in Absentia available under the BNSS should be used to the fullest extent, and trials of fugitives should proceed even in their absence.’ There was no reaction from Choksi on this report.

Sandesara relief

On November 24, the Supreme Court of India quashed all criminal proceedings against the Sandesara brothers who too, are absconding abroad. They allegedly committed a $1.6 billion bank fraud; but the apex court accepted a settlement of $570 million as a ‘full and final payment’ to lenders. This could conceivably open the gates for more such compromises.

Ashis Ray is a former editor-at-large of CNN and author of The Trial that Shook Britain. He can be followed on X @ashiscray.

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