New Delhi: The Czech Constitutional Court Wednesday rejected the application of Indian national Nikhil Gupta — indicted by the United States for plotting to kill Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun — upholding the decision by the two lower courts, paving the way for his extradition to the US.
According to the order (originally in Czech), the Constitutional Court concluded that it “did not find any circumstance for which declaring extradition admissible would lead to a violation of any of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms”.
It further said that the decision was “logical, factually correct and in accordance with the law and international treaty”.
According to the Constitutional Court, the courts dealt with the applicant’s objections to a sufficient extent, and also provided the necessary evidence.
“For the complainant, the proceedings before the Czech courts come to an end,” it ruled.
The court also rejected the Gupta’s request for release from pre-trial detention, and did not accept compensation for detention in the form of a monetary guarantee, or in the form of a ban on travel abroad.
Speaking to ThePrint over WhatsApp text, Vladimir Repka, spokesperson of the Czech Ministry of Justice, wrote that the highest court had confirmed the admissibility of Gupta’s extradition and that the Minister of Justice Pavel Blazek would now decide on the same.
Kamila Abbasi, spokesperson of the Constitutional Court, also told ThePrint that the court upheld the decisions of the District Court and Municipal Court in Prague that the complainant (Gupta) could be extradited to the US.
“The complaint of a citizen of the Republic of India, against whom criminal proceedings are being conducted in the United States of America (USA), was rejected today by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has now confirmed the decision of the general courts on the admissibility of extradition,” she said.
“The decisions of the Constitutional Court are final (there is no appeal),” read her response to ThePrint’s email.
On 19 January 2024, Gupta had challenged the decisions of both the Municipal Court in Prague (dated 23 November 2023), and the High Court in Prague (dated 8 January 2024), that ruled positively on the admissibility of the US’s request for his extradition. He had argued that the courts did not “properly assess the political nature of the act”, and that the “extradition would lead to a violation of constitutionally guaranteed basic rights”.
In its interim decision dated 30 January 2024, a copy of which is with ThePrint, the Constitutional Court had stayed any action against Gupta, saying that his extradition to the US for criminal prosecution would result in “disproportionately greater harm to him than anyone else”.
In a previous conversation with ThePrint, Abbasi had explained that Gupta’s complaint was lodged with the Constitutional Court on 19 January 2024. On 30 January, the court had decided to suspend the enforceability of the contested decisions of the municipal court and high court.
“Suspending the enforceability of the contested decisions means that the Constitutional Court needs to acquaint itself with the matter. It thus preventively protects the fundamental rights of the complainant, whose rights might be irreversibly infringed upon, until it decides, as the case may be, on the merits,” she had said in a written response.
“In general, in view of the fact that the complainant may face an infringement of his fundamental rights as a result of the enforcement of the contested decision, the Constitutional Court may suspend the enforcement of the contested decision, so it can properly review the matter,” she had added.
After the 30 January order, the matter was stayed, and the minister of justice could not decide on Gupta’s extradition. However, now that the Constitutional Court has rejected the contest by Gupta, the minister will now decide further course of action.
The US and Czech Republic have an extradition treaty, under which the US wants Gupta — who allegedly acted at the behest of an Indian official in plotting the murder — extradited.
The US has indicted Gupta, an Indian national, with conspiracy to murder Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) founder Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, who was a US citizen and a designated terrorist in India. Gupta was arrested by the Czech authorities on 30 June and is awaiting extradition.
A document, filed in a New York district court, also alleged that an Indian government employee played a role in the “failed plot”.
US prosecutors say this “employee” directed the “assassination plot from India”. The indictment claims that Gupta is involved in international narcotics and weapons trafficking, and was recruited by the said Indian government employee.
Also Read: International Criminal Court prosecutor seeks arrest warrants for Netanyahu & Hamas leaders
‘Courts thoroughly dealt with case’
According to a statement by Abbasi, Constitutional Court’s spokesperson (originally in Czech), Gupta objected before the Constitutional Court that the courts did not examine all the essential circumstances that could become an obstacle to extradition, and did not accept his evidentiary proposals.
He also alleged that the courts did not pay due attention to his objections and arguments, and did not deal with them.
The court, however, disagreed with Gupta, and said in its order that the courts “very thoroughly dealt with the extradition documents supplied by the American authorities and, in response to the objections of the complainant, additionally requested additional information”.
“As the Supreme Court particularly reminded, the evidence collected so far was considered by the grand jury of the District Court of the Southern District of New York, among others, before the indictment itself was issued,” the statement read.
The court also observed that Gupta did not object at all that the criminal offence, for which extradition is requested, should have an exclusively political or military character within the meaning of the International Cooperation Act, before the municipal court.
According to the statement, “he presented this argument (for the first time) only in a constitutional complaint. The political or military dimension does not result either from the legal classification of the crime in question, or from the act itself, or the circumstances of its commission”.
“The argument that he was hired by an Indian government agent in charge of security matters, and therefore, probably a task assigned by the Indian government (where the person who committed the crime is a “sui generis soldier” eliminating a member of a terrorist movement) cannot be a reason to deny the applicant’s edition. As stated by the High Court, the applicant is not a political activist and the act was not aimed at a change in the organisation of public affairs,” it read.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: What is the ‘Modi Mirage’ & why report is contesting claim of India’s enhanced global standing