AgustaWestland Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Christian Michel's Plea Challenging India-UAE Extradition Treaty Provision

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel James challenging Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty, which allows prosecution for offences connected to those for which extradition was granted.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice returnable in four weeks.

During the hearing, Counsel appearing for Michel argued that the Delhi High Court had gone to the extent of holding that the treaty would prevail over a law made by Parliament. It was submitted that Article 17 of the treaty is in absolute contravention of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which limits prosecution to the offences for which extradition is granted.

The present SLP challenges the Delhi High Court order dismissing Michel's plea assailing Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty executed in 1999. The High Court upheld the validity of the provision and also rejected his plea for release from prison.

The allegation against Michel is that the mandatory flying altitude requirement of 6000 metres for the helicopters was reduced to 4500 metres in March 2005 to favour AgustaWestland, and kickbacks were paid. Michel is alleged to have acted as a middleman, using contacts in the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Air Force and sharing confidential documents.

The CBI has alleged a loss of Euro 398.21 million, about Rs 2666 crore, to the exchequer in the contract signed on February 08, 2010 for the supply of VVIP choppers worth Euro 556.262 million.

The CBI registered a case on March 12, 2013 alleging offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in relation to the procurement of VVIP helicopters. The Enforcement Directorate filed a chargesheet against him in June 2016 alleging that he received EUR 30 million, about Rs 225 crore, from AgustaWestland.

Michel was extradited from Dubai on December 04, 2018 pursuant to an extradition decree dated September 02, 2018.

Michel approached the High Court contending that he was extradited only for offences under Sections 415 and 420 IPC and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that under Section 21 of the Extradition Act he cannot be tried for other offences. He challenged Article 17 as being ultra vires Articles 21, 245 and 253 of the Constitution to the extent it allows prosecution for “anything connected therewith”.

He argued that a requesting State can prosecute an extradited person only for the offences for which extradition was sought and not for connected offences.

The High Court held that there was no conflict between Section 21 of the Extradition Act and Article 17 of the treaty. It said that the scope of prosecution must be understood in light of the extradition decree passed by the Dubai court and the factual basis considered by the extraditing court. It found that Michel was extradited for offences arising from the same factual background in the present case, and that prosecution for such offences falls within the scope of Article 17.

The High Court further held that India and the UAE, as sovereign countries, had agreed on principles governing extradition and had incorporated consent for a person to be tried even for offences connected with those for which extradition was granted. It held that this is in conformity with, and not in derogation of, Section 21 of the Extradition Act.

Michel had also challenged a trial court order rejecting his application under Section 436A of the CrPC seeking release on the ground that he had undergone the maximum sentence of seven years. The Delhi High Court rejected this application by the impugned judgment.

Michel was granted bail by the Supreme Court in the CBI case on February 18, 2025, and later by the Delhi High Court in the ED case on March 04, 2025. He has remained in custody due to non-fulfilment of bail conditions.

Advocates Aljo Joseph, Sriram Parakkat and MS Vishnu Shankar represented the petitioner.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 7103/2026

Case Title – Christian Michel James v. Union of India