Red Corner Notices and Indian Law

Red Corner Notices: Efficacy, Legality, and Judicial Scrutiny under Indian Law

Introduction

A Red Corner Notice (RCN) is an international alert circulated by the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) to share information on wanted persons. It serves as a request to law enforcement agencies worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. While RCNs are crucial tools for international police cooperation in combating transnational crime, their interface with domestic legal systems, particularly in India, presents a complex web of legal and procedural considerations. This article analyzes the legal framework governing RCNs in India, the extent of their enforceability, the procedural safeguards available to individuals against whom such notices are issued, and the evolving jurisprudence shaped by Indian courts. It draws extensively upon key judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions to elucidate the nuanced position of RCNs within the Indian legal landscape.

The Nature and Mechanism of Red Corner Notices

Interpol's Role and RCN Issuance

Interpol facilitates international police cooperation. An RCN is issued by the Interpol General Secretariat at the request of a member country's National Central Bureau (NCB) or an international criminal tribunal. The issuance of an RCN is typically predicated on a valid national arrest warrant (Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State Of Maharashtra And Others, Supreme Court Of India, 2009; Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director & Ors., Delhi High Court, 2010). The purpose is to seek the location and provisional arrest of a wanted person, with a view to extradition. As stated in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State Of Maharashtra And Others (2009 SCC 9 551), "A red corner notice is supported by an arrest warrant issued by the competent judicial authority which empowers the law enforcement agency of any Member country to take follow-up action with regard to the arrest of the fugitive criminal." The Interpol General Secretariat evaluates whether the issuance is necessary and advisable, respecting human rights and security measures (Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani, 2009).

The conditions for issuing an RCN, as highlighted in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2010), generally include that the person has committed an offence against ordinary criminal law, the offence is extraditable, a warrant of arrest has been issued, and extradition will be requested from certain countries.

Legal Effect of Red Corner Notices in India

Crucially, an RCN itself is not an international arrest warrant and does not possess inherent legal authority to compel arrest in India. The Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State Of Maharashtra And Others (2009 SCC 9 551) clarified that an RCN "by itself does not have the effect of warrant of arrest. It is solely a request of the issuing entity to provisionally or finally arrest the wanted person for extradition." This position was reiterated in Marie-Emmanuelle, Verhoeven v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2016), which noted that while an RCN "acts as a de facto international arrest warrant," this is "subject to the condition that a request for extradition, along with necessary evidence, would be produced by the requesting State without delay."

The domestic legal provisions of each country determine the sanctity accorded to an RCN. Once a fugitive is located based on an RCN, the concerned law enforcement agency is required to follow up with a request for provisional arrest and a formal extradition request through diplomatic channels (Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani, 2009).

Statutory Framework and Procedural Aspects in India

The Extradition Act, 1962

The Extradition Act, 1962, is the primary legislation governing the surrender of fugitives to and from India. The Supreme Court has consistently held that municipal laws reign supreme in matters of extradition (Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani, 2009 SCC 9 551). Any action pursuant to an RCN, such as arrest or detention, must conform to the provisions of this Act.

Section 16 of the Extradition Act, 1962, deals with the provisional arrest of a fugitive criminal. Furthermore, Section 34-B allows for provisional arrest based on an urgent request from a foreign state, even in the absence of an RCN, as seen in Marie-Emmanuelle, Verhoeven v. Union Of India And Others (2016). The Court in Mohammed Zubair Fauzal Awam v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police & Anr. (Madras High Court, 2010), referencing Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani, outlined that a fugitive criminal may be arrested if the offence is recognized under Indian law and the person is liable for arrest under extradition laws or otherwise. However, a formal extradition request remains paramount for the actual extradition process (Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari (S) v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (S), 2011 SCC CRI 3 125).

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

The CrPC provides the general framework for criminal procedure, including arrest. Section 73 CrPC empowers magistrates to issue warrants for the arrest of escaped convicts, proclaimed offenders, or individuals accused of non-bailable offences who are evading arrest. This power can be invoked to aid investigation, as affirmed in State Through Cbi v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar And Others (2000 SCC 10 438). Such a national warrant can form the basis for requesting an RCN. In Ottavio Quattrocchi v. Central Bureau Of Investigation . (Delhi High Court, 1998), the legality of an RCN was questioned, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner did not fall under the categories for whom warrants could be issued under Section 73 CrPC.

Regarding Section 41(1)(g) of the CrPC, which allows a police officer to arrest without a warrant any person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information received that he has committed an act at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India, the Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani (2009) clarified that this section, when strictly construed in a case involving extradition, might not have direct application, and actions must be subject to the Extradition Act. This was also noted in Mohammed Zubair Fauzal Awam (2010).

Look Out Circulars (LOCs)

Look Out Circulars (LOCs) are distinct from RCNs, though often used in conjunction or for similar purposes of tracking individuals. LOCs are typically issued by Indian authorities to monitor or prevent the entry or exit of persons at immigration checkpoints. The Delhi High Court in Court On Its Own Motion Vs State v. Gurnek Singh Etc. (2010) and Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director & Ors. (2010) discussed the procedural requirements for issuing LOCs, noting they are based on requests from various authorities under different laws (IPC, CrPC, Customs Act, etc.) and require approval from specified ranks of officers. The power to issue an LOC, like an RCN, is an extraordinary power to be exercised with caution (Court On Its Own Motion Vs State v. Gurnek Singh Etc., 2010). Challenges to LOCs and RCNs often arise together, for instance, seeking their quashing to facilitate passport renewal or travel (Ravi Shankar Srinivas Dinavahi v. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Home Affairs, 2023 SCC ONLINE CHH 202).

Judicial Scrutiny and Protection of Rights

Fundamental Rights and Judicial Review

The issuance and enforcement of an RCN can have significant implications for an individual's fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), freedom of movement (Article 19), and equality before the law (Article 14) under the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani (2009 SCC 9 551) emphatically stated, "When a person complains of a violation of his fundamental right and/or otherwise of his fundamental right he is entitled to the right of judicial review. The High Court was, therefore, in our opinion, clearly wrong in holding that a red corner notice should not be tinkered with." This underscores that RCNs are not immune to judicial scrutiny in India. The courts are entitled to examine the manner of enforcement and whether local police actions are lawful, especially if they threaten arrest without adherence to the Extradition Act.

Grounds for Challenge and Quashing

Indian courts have entertained petitions challenging RCNs and associated LOCs on various grounds:

  • Non-Extraditable Offences: If the underlying dispute does not constitute an extraditable criminal offence under Indian law or the relevant treaty, an RCN's enforcement may be contested. For instance, matrimonial disputes, unless involving specific criminal extraditable offenses, may not warrant action based solely on an RCN without a formal extradition request (Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani, 2009 SCC 9 551; Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao And Others, 2013 SCC 15 790).
  • Procedural Lapses: Lack of a valid arrest warrant, absence of a formal extradition request, or non-compliance with the procedures under the Extradition Act, 1962, can be grounds for challenge.
  • Impact on Liberty and Movement: The difficulty faced by individuals in travel and business due to an RCN has been a subject of litigation (Ottavio Quattrocchi, 1998). In Ravi Shankar Srinivas Dinavahi (2023), the petitioner sought quashing of an LOC and RCN to facilitate passport renewal.
  • Changed Circumstances: If criminal proceedings are stayed or if a charge sheet has been filed and the situation changes, the continuation of an RCN/LOC may be deemed illegal. In RUKMINI KORRAPATI v. THE STATE OF AP (Andhra Pradesh High Court), the court directed the recall of an RCN/LOC kept alive despite a stay of proceedings, terming it an arbitrary exercise of power.
  • Lack of Authority to Issue: The authority requesting or issuing the notice can be a factor. In PRAKASH C.SHETH v. MR.RAMESHKUMAR G.KATHIRIA AND ANR (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2022), the Commission observed its limitations as a quasi-judicial forum in issuing RCNs, despite arguments invoking Section 72(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Misuse and Safeguards

The potential for misuse of RCNs, especially in disputes of a civil or private nature, is a concern. The courts emphasize adherence to due process and the supremacy of domestic law to prevent such misuse. The observations in Ottavio Quattrocchi (1998) regarding the impact of an RCN on free movement, despite unexecuted warrants and alleged insufficient incriminating material, highlight these concerns. The requirement for a valid arrest warrant and the prospect of a formal extradition request serve as initial safeguards.

Specific Contexts and Judicial Directives

Matrimonial Disputes and Child Custody

RCNs have been sought or issued in contentious matrimonial disputes, often involving allegations of child abduction. The Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani (2009) dealt with an RCN arising from a matrimonial dispute involving child abduction allegations from the U.S. The Court stressed that such disputes, absent specific criminal extraditable offenses, do not automatically warrant extradition under the Act without a formal request. Similarly, in Arathi Bandi (2013 SCC 15 790) and Prateek Gupta v. Shilpi Gupta & Ors. S (Supreme Court Of India, 2017), RCNs were noted in the context of international child removal cases, where courts balanced the orders of foreign jurisdictions with the welfare of the child and Indian law.

Economic Offences and Absconding Accused

RCNs are frequently employed in cases involving economic offences where accused persons have absconded from India. In Arifbhai Mohammadsharif Pipadwala v. State Of Gujarat (2013 SCC ONLINE GUJ 4894), the investigating agency confirmed the accused had fled the country, leading to an LOC and proposed steps for an RCN. Similarly, in Vasantray Liladhar Mansata v. State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court, 2019), an RCN was noted as having been issued against a co-accused in a case involving land grabbing and fraud.

Directives by Higher Courts

There have been instances where higher courts in India have taken cognizance of or even directed actions related to RCNs. For example, in S.E.B.I Petitioner(S) v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. (S) (2017 SCC ONLINE SC 407), the Supreme Court directed the Union of India to issue an RCN against an individual in the context of non-compliance with court orders regarding financial deposits. This illustrates the judiciary's role in exceptional circumstances to utilize such mechanisms to ensure compliance or secure presence.

Conclusion

Red Corner Notices serve as a vital instrument for international police cooperation, aiding in the pursuit of fugitive criminals across borders. However, within the Indian legal system, their efficacy is carefully balanced against the robust framework of domestic law, particularly the Extradition Act, 1962, and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Indian courts have consistently upheld the principle that an RCN is not a substitute for a domestic arrest warrant or a formal extradition request and that any coercive action taken pursuant to an RCN must comply with Indian legal procedures.

Judicial review plays a critical role in safeguarding individuals against potential misuse of RCNs and ensuring that their enforcement aligns with principles of justice, fairness, and due process. While facilitating international obligations, India maintains the supremacy of its municipal laws, ensuring that the liberty of individuals is not unduly compromised by international alerts without proper legal sanction and oversight within its own jurisdiction. The evolving jurisprudence continues to refine the interplay between international cooperation mechanisms like RCNs and the foundational tenets of Indian law.