A UK court on Wednesday rejected fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi’s bid to reopen his extradition proceedings, upholding earlier rulings and accepting assurances by the Indian government that he would not be interrogated by investigating agencies if extradited.
In an 18-page judgment reviewed by HT, the high court of justice in London bench of Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay held that the circumstances to reopen the case were “not exceptional”. The judges accepted India’s assurances, describing them as “specific and not general and vague”, and said they had been given “in good faith and with the intention that they should be binding”.
Following the decision, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said Modi’s challenge had been “successfully overcome” through sustained and coordinated efforts. It added that the matter was “strongly argued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) advocate (Helen Malcolm)”, “ably assisted by a dedicated team of CBI, including investigating officers who travelled to London for the hearing (last week)”.
What was Nirav Modi’s appeal?
In his appeal filed in August 2025, as exclusively reported by HT, and argued by UK-based extradition lawyer Edward Fitzgerald, who has represented other Indian fugitives including Sanjay Bhandari, Modi contended that “if he is returned to India he will be interrogated and be subject to torture and ill-treatment”.
He relied on the February 28, 2025 UK high court judgment in the Bhandari case, which held that “Bhandari would be at real risk of extortion, torture or violence in Tihar jail, from other prisoners or prison officials”, and had refused his extradition to India. In April 2025, the high court also denied India permission to appeal in the Supreme Court, effectively ending proceedings in that case.
To support his claims, Modi produced two defence witnesses — Indian lawyer Ashul Agarwal and former Supreme Court judge Deepak Verma — to argue the risk of interrogation and subsequent torture.
Fitzgerald argued that there were clear parallels between the Bhandari and Modi cases, including the court’s observation that Bhandari “is, or would be perceived to be, a wealthy man”. He submitted that “torture and ill-treatment by investigating agencies in India remain endemic and commonplace because the situation has not improved since Bhandari was published in February 2025”.
Modi’s counsel also described him as a particularly “big scalp” for the Indian government, arguing that the risk of further questioning by all five agencies remained. “Further, there is no effective monitoring system in place in India…,” the judgment noted.
Fitzgerald also cited cases where extradited individuals, including alleged British middleman Christian Michel in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper probe, were interrogated after being returned to India.
He further argued that Indian investigating agencies operate independently and that government assurances would not be binding on them.
Indian government’s response and arguments
To counter these claims, India provided two sovereign assurances stating that Modi would not be interrogated and would face only trial proceedings.
The first assurance, dated 10 September 2025, from the ministry of external affairs, stated that “neither the CBI nor the ED is empowered under Indian law to interrogate Modi after he is extradited in connection with the offences for which he is being extradited, and in any event, there is no intention or need to interrogate Modi because these cases are ready to proceed to trial”.
It further stated that all five agencies had confirmed in writing that custodial interrogation was not required, and that if it were ever needed, it would only occur with prior UK consent.
A second assurance, dated 2 December 2025, from the ministry of home affairs, reiterated that Modi would not be interrogated by the CBI, ED, SFIO, DRI or CBDT in relation to any proceedings, and any future interrogation would require prior permission from UK authorities.
It also stated that under the rule of specialty, Modi would not face trial beyond the extradition offences without UK consent, and that he would remain in Arthur Road Prison with access to video conferencing facilities for court appearances.
Affidavits filed by CBI and ED officials on December 9, 2025, confirmed that investigations in Modi’s cases were complete and the trial courts were already seized of the matters.
On February 12, 2026, the Indian High Commission in London issued a note verbale, stating that extradition matters fall within the exclusive domain of the central government and that the assurances provided were binding on all agencies.
High court’s ruling in India’s favour
The bench held that the assurances were binding on the government of India, the state of Maharashtra and all five agencies, and had not been made “with an eye to wriggling out of them”.
However, the court acknowledged that the Bhandari ruling painted a “worrying picture” of the use of proscribed treatment to obtain confessions, describing it as “commonplace and endemic”.
“The jurisdiction to re-open an extradition appeal requires the existence of exceptional circumstances as well as the identification of a real injustice that must be obviated… Were it not for the statements made and assurances given by the government of India between September 2025 and February 2026…we would be minded to re-open this appeal,” the court said.
The court noted that India did not contest the applicability of the Bhandari findings but relied entirely on the strength of its assurances, an approach the bench accepted.
It added that bilateral relations between India and the UK, the high-profile nature of the case, and Modi’s guaranteed access to legal and medical support weighed in India’s favour, even though the assurances would not be formally monitored. The court also observed that while India is not a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, torture is not permitted under Indian law.
The same bench had earlier dismissed Modi’s appeal against extradition in November 2022 and refused him permission to approach the UK Supreme Court.
Nirav Modi’s profile
Modi, accused of defrauding Punjab National Bank of ₹6,498 crore — part of a ₹13,578 crore fraud also involving his uncle Mehul Choksi, has been lodged in a UK prison since his arrest by Scotland Yard on 19 March 2019, following India’s extradition request. A district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court had ordered his extradition on February 25, 2021.
He was declared a fugitive economic offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The Enforcement Directorate has attached assets worth ₹2,598 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, of which ₹981 crore has been restored to victim banks.
