Sanjeev Kumar Chawla, a key accused in the cricket match-fixing scandal involving former South African captain Hansie Cronje in 2000, on Tuesday appeared in the High Court in London which was hearing his extradition request filed by India. Lord Justice Leggatt and Justice James Michael Dingemanns began hearing the Indian government’s grounds for the appeal at a day-long hearing this morning, which centers around the lower court’s judgment being based on outdated prisons information and sensationalised press reports regarding Indian jail overcrowding. The UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), arguing on behalf of the Indian government, also claimed that the ruling reflected a complete disregard of “solemn diplomatic assurance” by India that Chawla will be treated within internationally accepted norms for prison conditions.
The defence team, on the other hand, argued that the District Judge had been right in turning down the extradition request on human rights ground and that there were currently “110 fugitives” not being extradited to India from around the world due to poor jail conditions in the country. Chawla, who was present in court during the hearing, is classed as a “respondent” in the case, having been discharged from an extradition arrest warrant by District Judge Rebecca Crane after a Westminster Magistrates’ Court hearing in London in October last year. She had ruled that his human rights would be under threat due to the severe conditions in Delhi’s Tihar Jail, where he was to be held on being extradited.
The CPS had sought an appeal over that ruling and CPS barrister Mark Summers argued that Judge Crane had not been entitled to make the ruling that she did and that the prima facie case against the accused was established. “We don’t shrink away from the fact that there are problems throughout the Indian prison system,” Summers said, adding that the figures that were relied upon by the lower court judge were outdated and did not account for additional jails that have been built in Delhi since. The overcrowding levels at Tihar, he argued, were no longer at over 200 per cent but closer to 122 per cent. Using the UK Home Office’s own Country Guidance on India, he pointed out that it would seem that the conditions “resemble much like the UK’s current prison conditions”.
“India is a mature and solid democracy, with which we have had a strong extradition relationship,” noted Summers, who is currently also arguing on behalf of India in another high-profile extradition case – that of liquor baron Vijay Mallya. The CPS also dismissed concerns raised by the lower court around violence in Tihar and the lack of medical facilities, saying these were limited to “occasional outbursts” of gang violence and that there were sufficient medical facilities available. “[The evidence] is long way from a sound basis to conclude that violence is endemic in Tihar,” he noted. The High Court judges seemed particularly displeased by the Indian authorities’ late response in providing a second set of assurances sought by Westminster Magistrates’ Court during its extradition trial in 2017, something the CPS attributed to “crossed wires” and “regrettable misunderstanding”.
Chawla’s defence team, led by barrister Helen Malcolm, focused on of Tihar jail inmates being beaten up by prison authorities, most recently in November 2017, and tried to establish that the reality on the ground was “irredeemable” by any diplomatic assurance unless there can be an independent way to verify that assurance. “The response of the Indian authorities [to instances of violence] is to brush it off instead of tackling it head on,” she said, adding that the prima facie case against the accused had “fallen by the way side”due to the human rights issues involved in the case. The defence team also disputed some photographs provided by India as proof of adequate space in the proposed jail cell for Chawla in Tihar meeting the requirements of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The high court judges will reserve their judgment in the case at the end of Tuesday’s hearing, with a ruling expected in coming weeks.
According to court documents, Delhi-born Chawla had moved to the UK on a business visa in 1996, where he has been based while making trips back and forth to India. After his Indian passport was revoked in 2000, the 50-year-old obtained a UK passport in 2005 and is now a British citizen. In details of the case that emerged in court, Chawla was introduced to Hansie Cronje, the late South African cricket team captain, in January-February 2000. It was suggested to Cronje, by Chawla and another person, that he could make significant amounts of money if he agreed to lose cricket matches. Money was paid to Cronje at the time of the pending South African tour to India. The tour took place in February-March 2000, with Chawla, Cronje and others conspiring to fix cricket matches in exchange for payment, with Chawla reportedly playing a central role, including direct contact with Cronje.
