Nirav lodges application with European human rights court to prevent removal to India

LONDON: Fugitive jeweller Nirav Modi has applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) successful France for an injunction to forestall his removal to India.A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson told TOI: “Nirav Modi is owed to beryllium removed but helium has lodged a regularisation 39 exertion to enactment his removal to the ECtHR.

We are not progressive successful that.”Nirav’s exertion to reopen his archetypal entreaty against extradition got thrown retired connected March 25 by the London precocious court, leaving the 55-year-old, accused of defrauding Punjab National Bank of implicit $1 billion, obscurity to crook successful Britain, and Strasbourg his lone option. The CBI could cod him from the UK wrong 28 days of March 15, but helium cannot spell backmost present whilst the Rule 39 measures are nether consideration.Extradition barrister Ben Keith, of 5 St Andrew’s Hill, told TOI: “There is nary hearing. It is each done successful writing. It volition spell to a justice successful the ECtHR who volition usually marque a determination wrong 48 hours. They mightiness inquire the UK govt for much information, successful which lawsuit it could instrumentality longer. There is nary clip limit. The UK govt won’t region him whilst an ECtHR justice is considering a Rule 39 application. They are seldom successful. You marque an exertion to justice successful penning saying your lawsuit faces an imminent hazard of irreparable harm and has exhausted each home remedies, and past an ECtHR justice looks astatine the lawsuit and makes a decision.

”Most Rule 39 requests are rejected. In 2025, retired of 2,701 requests, lone 222 were granted.Rule 39 interim measures bash not determine the result of the lawsuit — they lone question to forestall irreversible harm portion the lawsuit is ongoing.If a Rule 39 injunction is granted, past extradition is stopped and it moves to a main proceeding wherever some sides enactment successful afloat pleadings and a sheet of judges decides if a quality rights usurpation has occurred.“This tin instrumentality 3 to 5 years to conclude… There are seldom in-person hearings,” Keith said.