The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Arindam Bagchi, at an online media briefing on Thursday, 17 June, said that India is “actively engaged with the Dominican government to seek the early deportation and handover to India of Mehul Choksi, to face justice in our country.”
The spokesperson was responding to a question on Choksi. He also informed that Choksi continues to remain in custody of authorities in the Commonwealth of Dominica and that legal proceedings are currently underway.
“The criminal charges that Mehul Choksi faces in India and the facts relating to his continued Indian citizenship have been suitably brought to the attention of the authorities in the Commonwealth of Dominica.”Arindam Bagchi, MEA Spokesperson
Choksi and his nephew Nirav Modi are the key accused in the Rs 13,400-crore Punjab National Bank scam of 2017. Both fled India in January 2018 before the CBI could file a case against them and have been absconding since.
Ask Pak to Comply With ICJ Ruling: MEA on Kulbhushan Jadhav
Meanwhile, the MEA called upon Pakistan to take steps to address shortcomings in its Review and Reconsideration Bill 2020, claiming that it currently does not create a machinery to facilitate effective review and reconsideration of Indian death-row prisoner Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case, as mandated by the judgment of the International Court of Justice.
“We call upon Pakistan to comply with judgment of International Court of Justice in Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case.”MEA
The MEA further, on Thursday, said that the Bill codifies into law the earlier Ordinance, with all its shortcomings.
The International Court of Justice had ruled that Pakistan was in breach of its international obligations because of the failure to provide consular access to Jadhav, pointed out the MEA.
“The Ordinance, now the Bill, invites the municipal courts in Pakistan to decide whether or not any prejudice has been caused to Jadhav on account of the failure to provide consular access.”MEA
“This is clearly a breach of the basic tenet that municipal courts cannot be the arbiter of whether a State has fulfilled its obligations in international law,” the MEA added. “Not only this, it further invites the municipal court to sit in appeal, as it were, over the judgment of the International Court of Justice.”
(With inputs from PTI)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)