The Complex Reality of Bringing Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Choksi Back to India: A Critique of Political and Legal Logjams
Bringing Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Mehul Choksi back to India involves navigating a labyrinth of political and legal challenges. This article explores the reasons behind their prolonged stays outside the country and highlights the broader issues they represent.
The Case of Vijay Mallya
The Ministry of External Affairs has informed India that there is a further legal issue that requires resolving before Vijay Mallya can be extradited to India. The UK government explains, 'Under United Kingdom law, extradition cannot take place until it is resolved. As it is judicial in nature, the issue is confidential, and Her Majesty’s government cannot provide any more details. We also cannot estimate how long this issue will take to resolve.'
The Case of Nirav Modi
On February 25, the District Judge gave judgment in the extradition case of Nirav Modi. The extradition order was signed on April 15, paving the way for his return to India. However, experts caution that this does not mean Nirav Modi will be moved back to the country immediately.
Nirav Modi has several legal avenues at his disposal, which can complicate the process of his extradition. The signing of the order is just one step in a multi-stage legal process. Historically, individuals with means and political support can delay the extradition process significantly.
The Case of Mehul Choksi
On Monday, the Dominican High Court granted bail to Mehul Choksi, allowing him to return to Antigua. The court's decision was based on Choksi's health condition, which includes neurological disorders, heart conditions, and diabetes. Choksi's arrest in Dominica, where he entered the country illegally, was seen as an opportunity for India to extradite him. However, with Choksi's return to Antigua, the possibility of his extradition to India through legal means has become considerably more challenging.
A Critique of the System
These individuals are products of a long-standing system of corruption in Politics. Despite the cases being brought to international courts, the process is often delayed and complicated due to the involvement of powerful political and financial interests. It is not uncommon for political parties to use these cases as scapegoats for appeasing certain groups.
Contrastingly, when a retail borrower defaults on their EMIs, banks are known to use all available means to collect payment. Central banks and policymakers often engage in extensive discussions to control Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) and offer moratoriums. This disparity highlights a double standard: retail borrowers are treated harshly, while those with significant financial assets and political influence are provided with a lengthy and complex legal process.
Further analysis reveals that retail loans, which are often for smaller amounts, have the least delinquency rates. Banks actively court this segment because of the lack of political or muscle power that might create noise. Once these borrowers start facing issues, banks and financial institutions have the means to turn the situation around, often silencing any noise through legal or extra-legal measures.
In conclusion, while cases like those of Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Choksi reflect individual moral failings, they also highlight the systemic issues within political and financial systems. The time has come for broader reforms that can ensure a fair legal process for all individuals, regardless of their financial or political status.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are those of the author, based on information available across various research articles, news channels, media, and press releases. The author is writing in a personal capacity and does not claim to be a subject matter expert. The views and comments expressed do not represent official ideas, attitudes, or policies of any agency or institution.