New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the operation of a Madras High Court order directing the Union government to take custody of international antique dealer Subhash Chandra Kapoor from prison in Tamil Nadu and initiate steps for his return to Germany.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan passed the interim order while hearing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which had held that Kapoor’s continued detention in India was illegal in the absence of Germany’s consent to his prosecution in other criminal cases.
In its September 8 order, the High Court had directed the Union government to take custody of Kapoor within two weeks and proceed in accordance with law to facilitate his return to Germany.
Kapoor, an American citizen and international antiquities dealer, was extradited from Germany to India on July 13, 2012, in connection with an idol theft case registered by the Udayarpalayam police in Tamil Nadu’s Ariyalur district in 2008.
He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in the case and has completed the sentence. However, Kapoor continued to remain in custody in connection with other pending cases involving the alleged theft of antique idols from temples in Tamil Nadu.
Allowing his habeas corpus petition, the Madras High Court had held that his continued detention could not be sustained without the consent of Germany, as required under the Extradition Act, 1962, and the India-Germany Extradition Treaty.
“The Rule of Speciality cannot be observed in form and defeated in substance,” a Division Bench of Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira and N. Gunasekaran had observed, adding that Kapoor’s liberty could not be withheld based on the possibility that consent might be obtained at a future date.
The High Court had further held that the seriousness of the allegations against Kapoor could not override the legal requirements governing his extradition and continued detention.
“The gravity or heinous nature of an alleged offence cannot, by itself, create a legal authority for detention where the rule of speciality otherwise requires the consent of the requested State,” it had said.
(IANS)
