71 Fugitives Located Abroad in 2024-25

The Paradox of 71 Fugitives Located Abroad: Success or Symptom?

In 2024-25, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) achieved a record-breaking feat: locating 71 individuals wanted by India in foreign jurisdictions. This is the highest number in 12 years, according to the Department of Personnel and Training's annual report. Yet, behind this milestone lurks a deeper question: is locating fugitives enough if extradition processes remain bogged down by delays and denials?

India sent 137 extradition requests over the last five years, yet hundreds of high-profile cases languish unresolved. With 533 Letters Rogatory pending—some for years—the pipeline of justice appears clogged at multiple stages. These figures underscore a persistent tension between diplomatic triumphs and the grinding inertia of judicial and bureaucratic systems.

The Policy Instruments at Play

India’s legal and institutional framework for extradition is largely anchored in the Extradition Act, 1962. This Act lays out procedures for surrendering or receiving fugitives under treaties or ad hoc arrangements. Additionally, India has ratified multilateral conventions such as the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

Extradition efforts are a two-pronged process:

• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): Acts as India’s Interpol National Central Bureau, issuing Red Corner Notices and coordinating with foreign police.
• The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA): Oversees diplomatic engagement related to formal extradition treaties, Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs), and Letters Rogatory.

India currently has extradition treaties with 48 countries and formal arrangements with 12 others—coverage that remains patchy given today’s globally interconnected networks of crime. The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA), 2018, adds another layer by enabling the confiscation of assets of economic offenders who flee India’s jurisdiction. However, institutional challenges permeate all these mechanisms, diluting their collective impact.

The Case for Optimism

Locating 71 fugitives, including high-profile economic offenders, signals progress in global law enforcement cooperation. It is a testament to India's growing operational efficacy within Interpol. Furthermore, diplomatic lobbying has improved: India’s ascendancy on multilateral platforms such as the G20 has helped put pressure on jurisdictions that once hesitated to act on politically-sensitive extradition cases.

Recent successes include the extradition of Christian Michel, a middleman in the AgustaWestland scandal, from the UAE in 2018—a country with which India ratified an extradition treaty only in 2000. This indicates that carefully negotiated treaties and proactive diplomacy can deliver results, even when the subject matter involves high stakes for both governments.

Moreover, the strengthening of the FEOA sends an unmistakable domestic signal: absconding will not shield offenders from legal and financial accountability. The attachment of assets worth ₹19,111 crore by the Enforcement Directorate under this Act demonstrates a shift towards achieving financial justice even prior to physical extradition.

The Case Against Complacency

However, these achievements must not obscure systemic flaws. Despite the complex machinery of Interpol notices and MLATs, India’s meaningful extradition outcomes remain sparse. Many fugitives located abroad are never returned to face justice, often due to procedural or structural barriers.

Judicial scrutiny in host countries is a significant bottleneck. For instance, courts in the UK—a frequent destination for Indian economic fugitives—require the Indian government to demonstrate not just legal grounds but also the compliance of Indian jails with human rights standards. The Nirav Modi case illuminates how such scrutiny can drag on for years, testing both diplomatic resolve and public patience.

Further, India’s outdated treaties impede its ability to address contemporary challenges. Older treaties follow an anachronistic “list-based” extradition system, which excludes crimes like cyber fraud. Meanwhile, the absence of treaties with key countries such as China and many tax havens leaves critical gaps.

Finally, the staggering backlog of 533 Letters Rogatory points to operational inefficiency. This mechanism, routed through diplomatic channels, often becomes a victim of bureaucratic inertia in both issuing and receiving countries. When evidence required for extradition hinges on such delays, the wheels of justice grind to a halt.

How Other Democracies Navigate the Dilemma

The United States provides an instructive contrast. With over 100 extradition treaties globally, the US operates within a clear, reciprocal framework. Moreover, its Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements are streamlined with dedicated task forces. The US uses bilateral negotiations not merely as a tool for extradition but as a platform to address underlying issues of shared interest, such as tax evasion or terrorism.

For example, the US recently secured the extradition of Yusuf Futchally, a financial fraudster, from Tanzania in just 14 months—less than half the average time India takes for similar cases. The lesson is clear: treaties alone are insufficient unless institutional capacity, clarity of law, and diplomatic nimbleness accompany them.

Where Things Stand

The record number of fugitives located in 2024-25 should be treated as both a milestone and a mirror. While it reflects India's improving ability to track criminals, it also exposes the chronic mismatch between locating fugitives and actually extraditing them. What matters, ultimately, is not how many are found but how many are brought back and successfully prosecuted.

If India is to move beyond symbolic victories, it must recalibrate its approach. Expanding extradition agreements is necessary, but so is modernizing the treaty structure, expediting Letters Rogatory, and ensuring humane prison reforms to address legitimate concerns of foreign courts. At stake is more than just legal accountability—restoring public faith in the rule of law requires urgency at both the diplomatic and institutional levels.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions