A British court on Wednesday rejected fugitive diamond maker Nirav Modi’s request to reopen extradition proceedings, upholding previous rulings and accepting the Indian government’s assurances that he would not be questioned by investigative agencies if extradited.
In an 18-page judgment reviewed by HT, the High Court of Justice in London comprising Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay held that the circumstances for reopening the case were “not exceptional”. The judges accepted India’s assertions, describing them as “specific rather than general and vague,” and said they were made “in good faith and with the intention of being binding.”
Following the decision, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said Modi’s challenge had been “successfully overcome” through sustained and coordinated efforts. She added that the matter was “vigorously argued by Solicitor for the Public Prosecution Service (CPS) Helen Malcolm”, “ably assisted by a specialist team from the CBI, including investigating officers who traveled to London to attend the hearing (last week)”.
What is the appeal of Nirav Modi?
In his appeal filed in August 2025, as exclusively reported by HT, and defended by UK-based extradition lawyer Edward Fitzgerald, who has represented other Indian fugitives including Sanjay Bhandari, Modi asserted that “if he is returned to India he will be interrogated and subjected to torture and ill-treatment.”
It relied on the UK High Court ruling of 28 February 2025 in the Bhandari case, which ruled that “Bhandari would be at real risk of extortion, torture or violence in Tihar Jail, from other prisoners or prison officials”, and refused to extradite him to India. In April 2025, the Supreme Court also refused to allow India to appeal to the Supreme Court, effectively ending proceedings in the case.
To support his claims, Modi produced two defense witnesses – Indian lawyer Ashul Agarwal and former Supreme Court judge Dipak Verma – to plead the risk of interrogation and subsequent torture.
Fitzgerald said there were clear similarities between Bhandari and Modi’s cases, including the court’s observation that Bhandari is “a wealthy man, or will be viewed as a wealthy man.” “Torture and ill-treatment at the hands of investigative agencies in India remain endemic and common as the situation has not improved since Bhandari’s deployment in February 2025,” he asserted.
Modi’s lawyer also called him a “big scalp” for the Indian government, arguing that the risk of further questioning by the five agencies remained. “Furthermore, there is no effective surveillance system in India…” the ruling noted.
Fitzgerald also pointed to instances where extradited individuals, including alleged British intermediary Christian Michel in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter investigation, were questioned after being returned to India.
He further said that Indian investigative agencies work independently and government assurances will not be binding on them.
Indian government response and arguments
To counter these allegations, India has provided two sovereign guarantees stating that Modi will not be questioned and will only face court proceedings.
The first assurance, dated September 10, 2025, from the Ministry of External Affairs said, “Neither the CBI nor the Directorate of Security has the right under Indian law to question Modi post-extradition in respect of the offenses for which he has been extradited and, in any event, there is no intention or need to interrogate Modi as these cases are ripe for trial.”
It further stated that all five agencies had confirmed in writing that custodial interrogation was not required and that, if necessary, it would only take place with the prior approval of the UK.
The second confirmation, dated 2 December 2025, from the Home Office, confirmed that Modi would not be questioned by the CBI, ED, SFIO, DRI or CBDT in connection with any proceedings, and any future questioning would require prior authorization from UK authorities.
It also stated that under the specialization rule, Modi would not face prosecution beyond extradition offenses without UK consent, and that he would remain in Arthur Road Prison with access to video conferencing facilities to appear in court.
The affidavits filed by the CBI and ED officials on December 9, 2025 confirmed that the investigations into the Modi cases had been completed and the lower courts had already heard the matters.
On 12 February 2026, the Indian High Commission in London issued a Note Verbale, stating that extradition matters fell within the exclusive domain of the Central Government and that the assurances given were binding on all agencies.
Supreme Court ruling in favor of India
The court held that the guarantees were binding on the Government of India, the State of Maharashtra and all five agencies, and were not given “with a view to evading them”.
However, the court acknowledged that the Bhandari ruling painted a “worrying picture” of the use of prohibited treatment to obtain confessions, describing it as “common and endemic”.
“Jurisdiction to reopen the extradition appeal requires the existence of exceptional circumstances as well as identification of the real injustice to be avoided… Had it not been for the statements and assurances given by the Government of India between September 2025 and February 2026… we would have contemplated reopening this appeal,” the court said.
The court noted that India did not challenge the applicability of Bhandari’s findings, but relied entirely on the strength of her assertions, an approach accepted by the court.
She added that bilateral relations between India and the UK, the high-profile nature of the case, and ensuring that Modi received legal and medical support were all factors in India’s favour, although the safeguards would not be formally monitored. The court also noted that although India is not a signatory to the UN Convention against Torture, Indian law does not allow torture.
The same court had earlier rejected Modi’s appeal against his extradition in November 2022 and refused to allow him to approach the UK Supreme Court.
Profile of Nirav Modi
Modi is accused of defrauding Punjab National Bank $6,498 Crore – Part of A $A Rs 13,578-crore scam also involving his uncle Mehul Choksi, has been lodged in a UK prison since his arrest by Scotland Yard on March 19, 2019, following an India extradition request. The district judge at Westminster Court had ordered his extradition on February 25, 2021.
He has been declared a fugitive economic offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The Enforcement Directorate has seized assets worth $2,598 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, of which $Rs 981 crore has been recovered to the affected banks.
