The UK High Court has rejected Nirav Modi's plea to block his extradition to India, accepting the Indian government's assurances that he will not be subjected to torture, paving the way for him to face fraud charges related to the Punjab National Bank.
Key Points
- The UK High Court rejected Nirav Modi's plea to reopen his extradition case based on assurances from the Indian government regarding his treatment.
- India provided 'comprehensive' assurances to the UK High Court, including details about Nirav Modi's prison conditions and legal access, to negate torture concerns.
- The court distinguished Nirav Modi's case from the Sanjay Bhandari extradition matter, where similar assurances were deemed inadequate.
- Nirav Modi is accused of orchestrating a Rs 13,000 crore fraud in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) and is wanted in India to face charges.
- The CBI played a key role in coordinating efforts to successfully overcome the challenge to Nirav Modi's extradition based on the Bhandari judgment.
The United Kingdom's High Court of Justice rejected fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi's petition to reopen his case against extradition relying on the "quality of assurances" given by the Indian government, which were "comprehensive" enough to neutralise the risk of torture that might have barred his transfer to India.
A bench comprising Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Justice Jay "refused" Nirav Modi's plea to reopen his extradition appeal under the Criminal Procedure Rules on Wednesday, noting that diplomatic undertakings given by India between September 2025 and February 2026 "provided a sheaf of assurances that are comprehensive, detailed and reliable".
Nirav Modi's application to reopen the appeal rested on a February 2025 judgment in the extradition matter of defence consultant Sanjay Bhandari, in which the high court had termed the use of torture by Indian agencies to extract confessions as "commonplace and endemic".
"When Mr Modi's case came before us in the autumn of 2022, the material underpinning the decision in Bhandari was either not available or was not drawn to our attention.
"This court's judgment in the Bhandari case presents a worrying picture of the use of proscribed treatment to obtain confessions, which was characterised as commonplace and endemic," the UK court said in its judgment.
Key Assurances from the Indian Government
The pivot in the case was a 'note verbale' sent to the UK government on December 2, 2025, by the Indian home ministry, signed by Joint Secretary Rakesh Pandey, assuring that Nirav Modi would not be interrogated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), or the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
It also included a detailed plan for keeping Nirav Modi in Mumbai's Arthur Road prison, the facilities he would have access to, and the legal help available to him during the trial.
"The assurances have been given by an official within the Ministry of Home Affairs competent to bind the government of India (GoI), as well as the state of Maharashtra and the five investigating agencies (which are also bound in our view by the terms of the assurances)," the court held.
A subsequent note verbale from the Indian High Commission on February 12, 2026, reinforced that the assurances are "binding and will be scrupulously adhered to by all the law enforcement agencies/authorities in India. Further, the assurances are also enforceable, including through courts in India, the court noted.
"Were it not for the statements made and assurances given by the GoI between September 2025 and February 2026, culminating in the note verbale to which we accord considerable weight, we would be minded to reopen this appeal in the exercise of exceptional power," the court held.
The judges distinguished the assurances in Nirav Modi's case from those found wanting in Bhandari, where the unnamed "investigation agency" and the absence of express written commitments from individual bodies proved detrimental.
The "quality of assurance" premise was used by the European Court of Human Rights in the 'Othman vs United Kingdom' case to examine the specificity, candour, and practical enforceability of diplomatic assurances on 11 parameters, a senior official said.
"Turning to the Othman factors, the terms of the assurances have been disclosed sufficiently to the court. The assurances are specific and not general and vague (cf. those given in Bhandari)," the court held.
Background of the Case
The 55-year-old jeweller, who shot to prominence for his Bollywood clientele, international boutique stores, and Cannes appearances, has been lodged in the Wandsworth prison since his arrest in the UK on March 19, 2019.
Declared a fugitive in India, Nirav Modi is accused of orchestrating a Rs 13,000 crore fraud in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) in collusion with his uncle Mehul Choksi, who is lodged in a Belgian prison.
According to the CBI, Nirav Modi alone siphoned off Rs 6,498.20 crore of the total misappropriated amount.
The bench said that although India is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, it "did not doubt that torture is not permitted under Indian law".
UK Home Secretary Priti Patel issued Nirav Modi's first extradition order in April 2021, a decision which was upheld by the divisional court in November 2022.
The bench held that the assurances given by the Indian government are "specific and not general and vague".
The Crown Prosecution Service advocate, assisted by a CBI team, strongly argued against Nirav Modi's petition.
A team of CBI officials, including investigating officers, travelled to London for the hearing.
"The reopening application had been filed on the basis of the Bhandari judgment. However, with sustained and coordinated efforts of the CBI, the challenge was successfully overcome," a CBI spokesperson said in a statement on Wednesday.
© 2026