Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

US District Judge Dale S. Fischer has issued a stay on the extradition of Tahawwur Rana, a Pakistani-Canadian businessman, to India. Rana is facing trial in India for his alleged role in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack.

"The extradition of Rana to India is stayed pending the conclusion of his appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," said Judge Fischer in its order dated 18th August. 

Judge Fischer's order effectively supersedes the recommendation made by the US government against granting a stay on the extradition of Tahawwur Rana.

Presently, Rana is facing charges related to his alleged connection and participation with David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American terrorist who played a pivotal role in the planning of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

Rana had filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court, challenging the decision of a US District Court in the Central District of California, which dismissed the writ of habeas corpus.

Subsequently, Rana filed an application seeking a stay on the extradition order issued by the California district court. Judge Fischer granted Rana's ex parte application.

Judge Fischer in the order noted that the proper meaning of “offence” in Article 6(1) of the extradition treaty is not clear and different jurists could come to different conclusions

“The proper meaning of “offence” in Article 6(1) of the extradition treaty is not clear and different jurists could come to different conclusions. Rana’s position is certainly colourable and could very well be found to be correct on appeal,” the judge noted.

Additionally, Judge Fischer in its order recorded that the public has a strong interest in the proper interpretation of extradition treaties, particularly in the interpretation of provisions that provide important individual protection

"The public has a strong interest in the proper interpretation of extradition treaties, particularly in the interpretation of provisions that provide important individual protections like the one at issue here. Further, there is a strong public interest in definitive, binding interpretations of treaties. District courts cannot provide those rulings; courts of appeals can,"  the judge noted.

Source: PTI