New Delhi
Fugitive Nirav Modi has exhausted all judicial remedies available to challenge his extradition to India, with the matter now moving into the executive phase following the conclusion of proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The latest development follows Modi’s unsuccessful attempt before the ECtHR after the High Court of Justice in London, on 25 March 2026, rejected his application to reopen his extradition appeal The judgment was delivered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Justice Jay.
In London, Modi’s legal team, led by Edward Fitzgerald KC, had sought to reopen the appeal under Criminal Procedure Rule 50.27, arguing that his extradition would expose him to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.Â
The defence relied substantially on the earlier High Court judgment in the case involving arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari which examined allegations relating to custodial interrogation practices in India.
While acknowledging the concerns discussed in Bhandari, the High Court concluded that the diplomatic assurances furnished by the Government of India were sufficient to eliminate any real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. The bench held that the Government of India had chosen not to dispute the findings recorded in Bhandari but had instead relied upon the quality and enforceability of the diplomatic assurances.Â
The judges observed that any breach of those assurances would have serious consequences for the relationship of trust and confidence between India and the United Kingdom, particularly in a case involving a high-profile fugitive.
The court also examined assurances issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 2 December 2025 and held that they were binding upon all executive agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
Rejecting the Modi’s defence team argument that individual agencies could independently interrogate him, the court ruled that the assurances governed all custodial access.
 It further held that even if Modi were produced before a court in Surat pursuant to an existing production warrant, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence would remain bound by those assurances and could not interrogate him in violation of the commitments given to the United Kingdom. The possibility of Modi securing bail in India, the court added, would not alter that position.
Following the March ruling, Modi approached the European Court of Human Rights seeking interim protection under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Strasbourg court granted anonymity and confidentiality to the proceedings, preventing public disclosure of the case file.
While the ECtHR has not publicly released any order or judgment because of the confidential status of the proceedings, senior diplomatic and investigative sources told The Sunday Guardian that the court has completed its consideration of Modi’s application and declined to grant interim relief under Rule 39.
 According to the sources, the refusal removed the final judicial obstacle to his extradition and shifted the matter into the executive process.
With judicial proceedings concluded in both the United Kingdom and before the ECtHR, the UK authorities are now expected to complete the administrative formalities required for Modi’s surrender to India.
Modi has remained in custody at HMP Wandsworth since his arrest on 19 March 2019. Upon his extradition, he is expected to be brought to Mumbai, where he will face prosecution in cases relating to the alleged Punjab National Bank fraud and associated money laundering investigations being pursued by multiple Indian agencies.
