Introduction

The United Kingdom, which has for so long been marketing itself for its stable institutions, human rights guarantee, and rule of law, has also earned a notoriety as a haven for economic offenders, criminals, terror suspects and global fugitives. Conventional legal protections, a ponderous and secretive justice system of extradition, and underfunded diplomatic repatriations have enabled perpetrators like Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Lalit Modi to stay out of Indian reach for many years.

Experts contend that "ambulance-chasing lawyers" take advantage of the UK's Human Rights Act, and secretive judicial or political judgments again delay extradition. Senior diplomacy under PM Modi, and new intelligence and justice agreements, seek to bridge these loopholes, but the system's structural momentum, offshore secrecy, and bilateral asymmetries remain intact.

This brief article analyses these imperatives with expert insights, cross-national case studies, and strategic policy proposals. A case is made for deploying effective and coercive geo-economic diplomacy as India’s economy has surpassed the British economy and is galloping towards the third slot internationally in terms of nominal GDP by 2027.

Historical Context

The UK's open-handed human rights case law, especially when it comes to prison conditions and guarantees of a fair trial, has been used repeatedly as a legal haven for extradition fugitives. Courts habitually invoke ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) Article 3- "no one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment," invoking such matters as overcrowding at Tihar Jail or risk of extortion in local custody. Sanjeev Chawla, Jatinder and Asha Rani Angurala, and Virkaran Awasty's cases were dismissed on such grounds

 

Even if UK courts permit extraditions, as in the case of Vijay Mallya, the final implementation has been vetoed by executive discretion. PM Boris Johnson de facto employed a "political veto" on grounds not revealed. This up-in-your-face highhandedness by the UK authorities did not pass the smell test. This political catch-all further added to India's legal successes, complicating them.

Recent Debate

During a recent  India Today's TV debate, ex-Foreign Secretary Kawal Sibal, criminal lawyer Tanvir Ahmed Mir, and a scholar from the University of London, Bourjin Wagmar examined why the UK seems permeable to fugitives. Wagmar attributed these extended exploits to systemic "obstruction of justice", spanning from opportunist lawyers to judicial excess and perverse application of the Human Rights Act and ECHR, itself the cause of extended exploits. He characterised the UK Home Office as "paralysed" in bilateral coordination, even with very close relationships with nations such as India, and even in platforms like the Quad Indo-Pacific strategy.

Sibal inquired whether such diplomatic clout as defence or trade relationships are being bargained off for fugitive repatriation. The Vijay Mallya case illustrates domestic UK Machiavellian manoeuvres: while courts permitted extradition, the UK government, headed by then-PM Boris Johnson, used a "confidential" provision to delay the process, "secret," and "not for any foreign government to learn."

Mir pointed out structural legal delay: repeated appeals, even to the European Court, drag cases out for years. He referred to Sanjay Bhandari (arms dealer), whose extradition was rejected on grounds of the possibility of hypothetical ill-treatment by Indian authorities in the Tihar jail, referring to instances such as Mallya, Nirav Modi, and others where India could actively provide undertakings, e.g., guaranteed bail, impartial and speedy trial to allay UK courts' apprehensions.

Wagmar concurred that India, being the "world's largest democracy," can point to instances, such as the trial of Ajmal Kasab or India's legal safeguards, to assure the UK that extradited persons are not mistreated. Sibal replied that India frequently seems to be in a defensive mode, needlessly downplaying its legal strength. He also pointed to bias in presuming Indian legal delays are unusual; the UK's own are notoriously sluggish. But the greatest obstacle, he declared, depends on a political secret and lack of will by those in government above judicial endorsements, as in Mallya's instance: proposing intent to maintain the UK's attraction for such persons.

Case Studies of High-Profile Fugitives from India in the UK

Name	Charges & Allegations	Status in the UK
Vijay Mallya	Loan defaults (~₹9,000–₹14,000 crore), money laundering	Appeals rejected in 2020, but extradition stalled due to a “confidential” impediment
Nirav Modi	$2B PNB fraud, money laundering	Extradition cleared by courts, Home Secretary signed in 2021, but delayed by a “confidential impediment”; bail denied eight consecutive times
Lalit Modi	Money laundering and FEMA violations (~₹1,700 crore)	Extradition in progress; status remains unresolved
Ravi Shankaran	War-room leak, espionage	Extradition rejected by UK High Court due to lack of prima facie case; India’s CBI missed appeal deadline
Virkaran Awasty	Rice scandal, financial fraud	Extradition refused, citing conditions in Tihar Jail and abuse of legal process (Bhandari precedent)

 

Apart from India, other international offenders, ranging from terrorism-linked individuals to white-collar criminals, have similarly used such legal tools and protections to evade extradition.

 India's Extradition Challenges & Diplomatic Strategy

1. Extradition Treaty Landscape

India signed an extradition treaty with the UK in 1992 (effective 1993). Despite this longstanding legal framework, the return rate has been low; only about one in three fugitives globally are repatriated.

2. Institutional & Procedural Weakness

Experts and policy experts have noted problems in India's extradition process: delays in documentation, inadequate prima facie evidence filings, substandard diplomatic follow-through, and failure to make timely arrests. Exhortations have been made to revamp extradition treaties, improve India's prison facilities, and issue formal assurances of humane treatment to host courts

3. Expert Voices: Indian Strategic Perspectives

Indian analysts have been consistent in their argument that strategic congruence with Western standards of law, enhanced diplomatic coordination, and mutual transparency are essential to justify India's extradition power. They emphasise mutual trust-building and congruence of norms to minimise legal friction.

Strategic Cooperation: Turning the Tide

1 India–UK Diplomacy

In the PM Modi's July 2025 UK visit, both nations signed a framework for deeper cooperation on extradition, intelligence, and organised crime: backed by CBI–NCA relations

2. Policy Leverage

Diplomatic leverage: like tying extradition cooperation to larger geo-economic and geo-political cooperation (trade, security, Indo-Pacific cooperation)—could pressure movement.

3. Legal Reforms & Procedural Safeguards

India may speed up its extradition appeals by:

Extending ironclad guarantees (custody conditions, equitable trial, bail procedures) to meet UK human rights issues

4. Fast-tracking Indian legal processes; reducing delays, causing UK courts to suspect.

Presenting official diplomatic notes with weight of evidence and binding guarantees, rather than unsubstantiated assurances.

Policy Recommendations

1 Proactive Legal Assurances

For individuals like Mallya or Nirav Modi, Indian authorities should present formal affidavits guaranteeing bail, humane imprisonment, and an unbiased trial in advance to pre-empt UK legal objections. Make extradition forward movement an equal goal alongside trade, security, and Indo-Pacific partnership; use multilateral summits and defence pacts as negotiating platforms.

2 Institutional Coordination

Create a dedicated India–UK Extradition Task Force with CBI, ED, Ministry of External Affairs, and NCA to follow up on cases, monitor backlogs, and share intelligence in real-time. Moreover, Reform India's prison establishments; create documents that address UK human rights concerns. Make extradition dossiers meticulous, prompt, and include legal and humanitarian grounds.

3 Public Messaging & Soft Power

Utilise incidents like 26/11 designated terrorist Ajmal Kasab to underscore India's fair process, disconnect the Indian justice system from global stereotypes, and reshape global opinion. Also, updating extradition treaties to include fast-track time-bound mechanisms where dual criminality and evidence are established; reducing multi-tier appeals.

4 Calling Out the UK’s Constitutional Anomalies:

India needs to put pressure on the UK government to codify its constitution, as it lacks one, unlike all the major liberal democracies. A nation lacking a written constitution cannot boast of constitutional guarantees. The perennial and entrenched habit of shifting goalposts on one pretext or the other must be called out vehemently.

5 Use of coercive Economic diplomacy

India displaced the UK as the fifth leading nation in terms of nominal GDP last year and has now surpassed even Japan to become the 4^th largest economy in 2025. The UK has lost market access to the EU after Brexit and is looking elsewhere, including India, for alternative markets. The recent signing of a bilateral free trade and economic partnership agreement between India and the UK presents India with an opportunity to use coercive economic diplomacy and make market access conditional on the UK’s vacillating behaviours in upholding the bilateral extradition treaty.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the UK's reputation as an "economic crimes haven" remains based on legal realism: institutional human rights protection, delayed and incomplete extradition processes, and the occasional political override. The UK is no longer perceived as a law-abiding nation that follows a Rules-based international order. UK‘s perceived sympathy for terrorists and economic offenders has been noted.

 Future trust in the UK’s ability to deliver on signed international agreements is in serious doubt. There seems to be a hidden imperialistic and quasi-racist attitude in those governing the UK, as they perceive the Indian judiciary to be less than fair and every criminal being subject to extortion and human rights violations, a euphemism for diplomatic arrogance.

Nevertheless, India has made decisive strategic shifts, bilateral agreements, stronger legal filings, and diplomatic initiatives that can tip the balance. Expert insight, such as that of the India Today debate, reveals both the weaknesses and the realms where India can be a proactive player.

A balanced mix of legal assurance, institutional reform, and deft and effective economic diplomacy presents India's best chance to turn perception into productive dividends and extradite these criminals expeditiously.  The onus ultimately lies on the UK authorities to rebrand the UK not as a refuge for criminals, but as an international partner in upholding justice in good faith.

 

References

1. Business Standard. (2025, July 24). India seeks UK cooperation to bring economic offenders to justice.
    
2. Devdiscourse. (2025, July 24). India and UK join forces in the extradition of economic offenders.
    
3. The Economic Times. (2020, October 9). Secret extradition proceedings going on to bring Vijay Mallya: Centre to SC.
    
4. The Economic Times. (2025, May 18). UK judge notes ‘confidential impediment’ in Nirav Modi extradition case.
    
5. The Economic Times. (2025, July 23). India and UK working on legal scrubbing, other work for FTA: FS Misri.
    
6. The Financial Express. (2025, May 18). London court cites ‘confidential impediment’ in Nirav Modi extradition proceedings.
    
7. The Hindu. (2020, October 9). Secret legal matter holding up Vijay Mallya’s extradition: U.K.
    
8. The Hindu. (2020, November 10). Vijay Mallya extradition delayed over ‘confidential’ proceedings: U.K. envoy.
    
9. Hindustan Times. (2020, June 4). ‘Confidential’ legal issue has to be resolved for Vijay Mallya’s extradition, says UK.
    
10. The Indian Express. (2020, June 4). UK says ‘confidential’ legal issue needs to be resolved before Vijay Mallya’s extradition.
     
11. Live Law. (2025, February 5). Vijay Mallya says banks recovered ₹14,131.60 crore—more than double the adjudicated debt; moves Karnataka HC.
     
12. NDTV. (2020, June 4). On Vijay Mallya’s extradition, UK government’s statement hints at hurdle.
     
13. Reuters. (2024, July 26). India’s markets regulator bars tycoon Vijay Mallya from securities trading for 3 years.
     
14. Reuters. (2025, April 9). Tycoon Vijay Mallya loses appeal against UK bankruptcy order.
     
15. Times of India. (2025, May 18). UK judge flagged ‘confidential impediment’ blocking Nirav Modi’s extradition to India.
     
16. Tirkey, A. (2023, August 21). India’s challenges in extraditing fugitives from foreign countries (Issue Brief No. 270). Observer Research Foundation.