Extradition: How India is closing the escape route for fugitives
For a long time, leaving India could mean putting the law on hold. Once an accused person crossed an international border, the case could disappear into diplomatic delays, unfamiliar legal systems and poor coordination between agencies. India’s extradition framework remained limited, with treaties covering only 37 countries.
Between 2004 and 2013, the country extradited an average of just four fugitives a year while over a hundred requests remained pending. Crossing a border was therefore not simply a means of escape. It could become a way of buying time.
Over the past decade, that equation has begun to change. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the pursuit of fugitives has steadily moved from the margins of criminal justice to the centre of national security policy. Once that political direction was established, the challenge shifted from intent to execution. It needed institutions that can sustain it, agencies that can work together and legal frameworks that can withstand scrutiny in foreign courts. It is here that Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s role deserves closer attention. Less as the face of individual extraditions and more as the chief architect of a framework intended to make India’s pursuit of fugitives more systematic and credible.
The return of 274 fugitives from 36 countries between 2019 and July 2026 has understandably attracted public attention. But the number only tells part of the story. Every successful repatriation depends on a chain of institutions, police forces, intelligence agencies, courts and foreign governments working in sequence. If even one link weakens, the process stalls. The more meaningful question, therefore, is not how many fugitives have returned, but why India is now able to pursue them more consistently than before.
The answer lies in the Union Home Minister’s institution building. For years, India’s extradition system struggled with limited treaty networks, inconsistent documentation and poor inter-agency coordination. There was also no dedicated law to deal with economic fugitives and their assets. The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act of 2018 changed that, while from 2020 onwards, efforts to bring fugitives back was pursued in "mission mode."
The problem was structural and the architecture to address it did not emerge through one sweeping reform. It was assembled piece by piece. BHARATPOL, launched in January 2025, created a national platform for coordination and information-sharing with INTERPOL, connecting more than 1,400 units of central and state agencies. Information sought by the CBI is now generally shared within 10 to 20 days, and in some cases within just 3 to 10 days. Operation Trishul added a technology-driven layer to fugitive tracking, using satellite inputs, surveillance and digital footprints to locate individuals who had changed their names or identities abroad.
Neither change would have transformed India’s record on its own.
Together, however, they altered the way the system functions. INTERPOL Red Corner Notices have risen sharply with 401 notices issued against fugitive criminals over the last three years. Extradition requests are now prepared in a more professional and standardized manner, with written assurances tailored to the documentary requirements and legal expectations of individual countries.
A Standing Focus Group within the Intelligence Bureau’s Multi-Agency Centre was constituted in January 2026 to prioritise fugitive cases, standardize dossiers and maintain follow-up with foreign partners. Legislative reforms, including provisions for trial in absentia under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, mean that remaining outside India need not automatically bring judicial proceedings to a halt. Individually, these may look like administrative or legal measures.
Collectively, they represent a significant re-engineering of how India pursues fugitives beyond its borders.
It is worth remembering that extradition is among the most demanding forms of international cooperation. Foreign courts are not obliged to accept India’s case because New Delhi considers someone guilty. Every request must satisfy the legal standards of another sovereign jurisdiction. Every document is scrutinized. Every procedural lapse can become grounds for delay. This is why institutional capacity matters so much. It is also why Shah’s emphasis on professionalising extradition requests, improving coordination and deepening engagement with INTERPOL matters beyond the politics of any individual case.
The implications extend beyond the return of individual criminals. Whether the accused are terrorists, organized crime figures or economic offenders, every successful extradition strengthens the credibility of the Indian state. The financial dimension matters too. Between 2019 and 2026, assets worth `17,874 crore belonging to fugitive criminals were attached, while `18,762 crore was restituted in cases involving fugitive economic offenders. It tells financial offenders that geographical distance is no longer the insurance policy it once appeared to be.
Cases such as the extradition of Tahawwur Hussain Rana are important not only because of the individual involved, but because they demonstrate the patience, diplomatic engagement and legal persistence that modern extradition demands. The 274 returns include fugitives wanted in cases ranging from murder and organized crime to terrorism, narcotics, sexual offences and financial crimes.
Under Prime Minister Modi, extradition acquired political priority and under Union Home Minister Amit Shah, it acquired institutional shape. The achievement, therefore, is not merely that more fugitives have returned to India. It is that the Indian state has begun building the capacity to ensure that crossing an international border is no longer seen as the easiest way to outrun Indian law.