A UK court on Wednesday rejected fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi’s bid to reopen his extradition proceedings, upholding earlier rulings and accepting assurances by the Indian government that he would not be interrogated by investigating agencies if extradited.. Fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi. (Mint File Photo). In an 18-page judgment reviewed by HT, the high court of justice in London bench of Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay held that the circumstances to reopen the case were “not exceptional”. The judges accepted India’s assurances, describing them as “specific and not general and vague”, and said they had been given “in good faith and with the intention that they should be binding”.. Following the decision, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said Modi’s challenge had been “successfully overcome” through sustained and coordinated efforts. It added that the matter was “strongly argued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) advocate (Helen Malcolm)”, “ably assisted by a dedicated team of CBI, including investigating officers who travelled to London for the hearing (last week)”.. What was Nirav Modi’s appeal?. In his appeal filed in August 2025, as exclusively reported by HT, and argued by UK-based extradition lawyer Edward Fitzgerald, who has represented other Indian fugitives including Sanjay Bhandari, Modi contended that “if he is returned to India he will be interrogated and be subject to torture and ill-treatment”.. He relied on the February 28, 2025 UK high court judgment in the Bhandari case, which held that “Bhandari would be at real risk of extortion, torture or violence in Tihar jail, from other prisoners or prison officials”, and had refused his extradition to India. In April 2025, the high court also denied India permission to appeal in the Supreme Court, effectively ending proceedings in that case.. To support his claims, Modi produced two defence witnesses — Indian lawyer Ashul Agarwal and former Supreme Court judge Deepak Verma — to argue the risk of interrogation and subsequent torture.. Fitzgerald argued that there were clear parallels between the Bhandari and Modi cases, including the court’s observation that Bhandari “is, or would be perceived to be, a wealthy man”. He submitted that “torture and ill-treatment by investigating agencies in India remain endemic and commonplace because the situation has not improved since Bhandari was published in February 2025”.. Modi’s counsel also described him as a particularly “big scalp” for the Indian government, arguing that the risk of further questioning by all five agencies remained. “Further, there is no effective monitoring system in place in India…,” the judgment noted.. Fitzgerald also cited cases where extradited individuals, including alleged British middleman Christian Michel in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper probe, were interrogated after being returned to India.. He further argued t
