Antwerp court clears fugitive jeweller Mehul Choksi's extradition: Officials
New Delhi (PTI): A court in Antwerp on Friday cleared the extradition of fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi, noting that his arrest by the Belgian authorities on India's request was valid, officials in the know of the development said.
The order has come as a strong validation for India's case seeking his extradition, with Choksi having the option of appealing against the decision in a superior court in Belgium, they said.
"The order has come in our favour. The court has termed his arrest by the Belgian authorities on India's request valid. The first legal step in getting him extradited is now clear," a senior official said.
Belgian prosecutors were aided by Indian officials from the external affairs ministry and the CBI in putting forth strong arguments on Choksi's alleged crime in orchestrating a Rs 13,000 crore scam in the Punjab National Bank in collusion with his nephew Nirav Modi.
The prosecutors told the court that he remains a flight risk and cannot be released from prison, the officials said.
After hearing the Belgian prosecutors and Choksi's defence lawyers during the hearings in mid-September, the court concluded that his arrest was valid.
Choksi (66) was arrested in Belgium on April 11 on the basis of the extradition request sent by the CBI, they said. His bail applications have been rejected by different courts in that country.
India has also assured the Belgian authorities that if extradited, Choksi would be housed in Barrack No. 12 at the Arthur Road jail in Mumbai, with no chance of overcrowding or solitary confinement, as at least one more economic offender is expected to be housed in his cell.
The Union home ministry informed the Belgian authorities through a September 4 communique that the personal living space for each inmate in Barack No. 12 is in line with and fully meets the minimum space requirement of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) of Europe.
Choksi had fled to Antigua and Barbuda in the Carribbean where he had taken citizenship.
After he was stopped in Belgium, the CBI, the external affairs ministry, and the home ministry swung into action to get him extradited to India to face the law.
India has assured that the cell in which Choksi will be detained will meet European standards -- sized approximately 20 feet by 15 feet with a separate toilet and washroom, ventilators, and a grilled main door, which provides sufficient air circulation.
It also assured "high-level of security" in the cell, with a clean, thick cotton mat, pillow, bed sheet, and blanket. The cell would be swept and mopped daily, along with supply of fresh drinking water, outdoor exercises, rest areas, board games such as chess and carrom, and badminton, the prison department said.
Art of Living yoga sessions are also provided to the inmates of the barrack.
Daily newspapers in English and local languages, terrestrial TV channels, videoconferencing facilities, and telemedicine services are also available in the prison.
Meeting with blood relatives is permitted once a week, while lawyer meetings are allowed daily, it said.
Choksi and his nephew Nirav Modi are wanted in a Rs 13,000 crore fraud in the Punjab National Bank, which they allegedly orchestrated through fraudulent letters of undertaking (LoUs) in connivance with some bank officials at PNB's Brady House branch in Mumbai, the officials said.
Nirav Modi, declared a fugitive economic offender, has been lodged in a London jail since he was held by the authorities there in 2019 on the basis of a legal request made by the ED and the CBI in this case.
He is contesting his extradition to India.
The CBI also invoked United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in its extradition request.
At least two open-ended arrest warrants, issued by a special court in Mumbai in 2018 and 2021, were shared by the Indian agencies with their Belgian counterparts as part of the extradition request, sources said.
According to the investigating agencies, officials at PNB's Brady House branch issued 165 LoUs and 58 FLCs during March-April 2017, against which 311 bills were discounted.
These LoUs and FLCs were allegedly issued to Choksi's firms without any sanctioned limit or cash margin and without making entries in PNB's central banking system to evade any scrutiny in case of a default.
LoUs are a guarantee given by a bank on behalf of its client to a foreign bank. If the client does not repay the foreign bank, the liability falls on the guarantor bank.
Based on the LoUs issued by the PNB, money was lent by the SBI, Mauritius; Allahabad Bank, Hong Kong; Axis Bank, Hong Kong; Bank of India, Antwerp; Canara Bank, Manama; and SBI, Frankfurt.
"Since the accused companies did not repay the amount availed against the said fraudulent LoUs and FLCs, PNB made the payment of Rs 6,344.97 crore (USD 965.18 million), including the overdue interest, to the overseas banks, which had advanced buyer's credit and discounted the bills against the fraudulent LoUs and FLCs issued by the PNB," the CBI's supplementary chargesheet in the PNB bank fraud case alleged.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
