OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM 6, Albuquerque Road, New Delhi. Ref. GEN.67/2 6 17th August, 1954. Dear Mr. Pelly, Mr. Middleton is on United Kingdom leave and I am writing therefore in reply to your letter (Crom.3/7) of 4th July about an Indian living in Bombay whom you would like to have transferred to Kuwait under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. The question of the validity of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, in India since independence is at present the subject of correspondence between the Commonwealth Relations Office and this Office. Some months ago the Supreme Court of India ruled that Part II of the Fugitive Offenders Act was no longer applicable to India. In his comments the Chief Justice said that when India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic by no stretch of the imagination could she be described as a British possession, nor could she be grouped by an Order in Council by Her Majesty amongst other possessions. "Truly speaking, it became a foreign territory so far as other British possessions were concerned and the ex tradition of persons taking asylum in India, having committed offences in British possessions, could only be dealt with by an arrangement between the Sovereign Democratic Republic of India and the British Government and given effect to by appropriate legislation". The Indian Parliament had not so far enacted any law on the subject nor had any arrangement been arrived at between the two Governments. It is not altogether clear from the information at present available to us whether the Supreme Court of India held that the whole of the Fugitive Offenders Act ceased to a apply to India from January, 1950. We are going to get a copy of the judgement in order to study this further. None of us here has much experience in this sort of thing and I am afraid it is not clear to me whether, in seeking the return of Rashid Rustom Irani to Kuwait, you would be invoking Part I or Part II of the Fugitive Offenders Act. If you would be operating under Part I, then we may be able to pursue the matter a little further as a test case. But if Kuwait is a territory to which Part II applies then, I fear, that your request is a non-starter. I am sending a copy of this letter and yours to the Commonwealth Relations Office.. Yours sincerely. E.J. Emery.
