UK team steps inside Tihar as India tries to close the loop on big-ticket fugitives
British prosecutors spent hours inside Delhi’s Tihar Jail, talking to inmates, walking through a high-security ward, and checking facilities. It looked procedural, but the stakes are high: this on-the-ground check could decide whether India can finally bring back Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi from the UK.
The five-member delegation from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), joined by officials from the British High Commission, was in Tihar to answer a narrow but decisive question British judges keep asking: can India guarantee safe, humane detention for high-profile accused? UK courts have blocked or delayed transfers before, citing the risk of ill-treatment and the reality of overcrowded jails.
The timing is no accident. Earlier this year, a UK court allowed arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari’s appeal against being sent to India, ruling that he faced a real risk of extortion and violence in Tihar. That verdict sharpened the spotlight on Delhi’s jail system and pushed Indian officials to put forward fresh assurances—with more detail and more monitoring—than ever before.
During the visit, Indian authorities said they could ring-fence a separate enclave inside Tihar for high-profile prisoners. The promise was clear: secure housing, trained staff, CCTV coverage, medical oversight, and routine access to lawyers. Officials told the team the setup would meet international standards and be auditable, addressing the exact issues raised by British judges in past rulings.
Mallya, the former liquor baron, is accused of defaulting on loans adding up to roughly Rs 9,000 crore. He remains in the UK while legal and related processes continue. Nirav Modi, the main accused in the Rs 13,800 crore Punjab National Bank fraud, was arrested in London in 2019. A London court has already approved his transfer, but appeals and related proceedings are still in motion at higher levels. Both cases are long-running, complex, and politically sensitive.
So why does a jail visit matter so much? Because UK courts will not approve transfer if there’s a “real risk” that a person will be treated inhumanely. That is rooted in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The CPS is not picking sites; it is testing whether India’s guarantees are specific, credible, and enforceable. After the Bhandari ruling, that bar got higher.
Tihar is one of Asia’s largest prison complexes and has long struggled with overcrowding. Rights groups have flagged abuse risks. India, on the other hand, points to a steady upgrade—more CCTV coverage, better medical units, video-conference court access, and segregation for vulnerable prisoners. The truth is both things can be true at once: the system is improving, and the pressure points remain.
There is precedent for UK courts accepting Indian assurances. In 2020, bookmaker Sanjeev Chawla was extradited from Britain after judges signed off on the plan for his detention in Tihar. In the Nirav Modi case, India submitted videos and floor plans of a dedicated cell at Mumbai’s Arthur Road Jail to show light, space, sanitation, and medical access. Even so, each case is judged on current, case-specific risks—and the Bhandari ruling showed the courts want more than general promises.
That is why Tihar is under scrutiny now, even if some returnees could be held elsewhere. Many federal investigations and initial court appearances happen in Delhi. High-profile arrests often go through Delhi-based agencies. If the UK is going to approve transfers, it needs to be convinced that the place of first custody—very often Tihar—is safe and compliant from day one.
Indian officials say they’ve put new guardrails in writing for UK judges. They argue these do three things: reduce contact risks with general population, raise transparency through surveillance and logs, and guarantee unfiltered access to medical care and legal counsel. The CPS visit let the officials walk the British team through how those safeguards would work in practice.
- A dedicated high-security enclave, with a defined cap on occupancy and controlled access.
- 24/7 CCTV coverage in corridors and common areas, with footage retention for audits.
- Written protocols on no-contact or limited-contact regimes for at-risk inmates.
- Regular medical checks, including mental health screening and on-call specialists.
- Daily access to lawyers, private meetings, and phone calls as per court orders.
- Record-keeping on meals, exercise, and health checks; logs available to courts.
- Independent inspection by designated authorities and court-appointed visitors.
Will that be enough? The CPS will now report back to UK authorities. If courts are satisfied that there’s no real risk of ill-treatment, cases can move. The UK Home Secretary signs off only after the courts clear the transfer. If not, India may be asked to add more checks, carve out more space, or demonstrate stronger oversight.
Beyond Mallya and Modi, the pipeline is big. Government data shows India has 178 pending extradition requests worldwide. About 20 involve the UK—ranging from economic crimes to cases linked to Khalistani groups and other criminal activity. Since 2019, India says it has secured 23 extraditions from various countries. Delhi’s message is that it is closing in on high-value targets, not just low-hanging fruit.
India and the UK have an extradition treaty dating back to the early 1990s, but the texture of cooperation changes with each case, depending on human rights assessments and the quality of evidence. In the past few years, India has leaned into a mix of legal work and diplomacy—filing detailed affidavits, sharing videos of target cells, and offering to tailor detention plans. The Tihar visit fits that script: reduce uncertainty through verifiable detail.
Still, the Bhandari ruling hangs over this process. The court’s language on extortion and violence in Tihar was blunt. It forces Indian authorities to show that specific risks are mitigated for specific prisoners, not just in theory but inside a named building with a lockable door, a rostered guard, a camera, and a logbook. That is what the CPS came to see.
There is also a practical angle. High-profile inmates need security from other prisoners, but also from overbearing staff. Segregation reduces peer risk but can increase isolation stress. More cameras deter abuse but raise privacy questions. Regular medical checks reduce harm but can be performative if treatment is delayed. The best answer isn’t one promise; it’s a web of small, verifiable steps that add up to a safe environment.
In recent months, Indian officials have increasingly referenced the UN’s Nelson Mandela Rules—the global benchmark on prisoner treatment. Expect that language to appear in filings. Expect more specifics too: square footage per prisoner, natural light hours, ventilation specs, yard time, hot water access, and independent monitoring schedules. British courts have asked for this level of detail before; they will again.
For Mallya and Modi, the courtroom story is familiar but not finished. Allegations of massive financial wrongdoing, years of litigation, headline hearings, and stop-start progress. For investigators, the point of the Tihar visit is simpler: remove one of the last hurdles between a UK courtroom and an Indian jail. If the CPS signs off on the risk assessment, the path to extradition gets shorter.
What happens next? The CPS team will finalize its assessment and feed it into ongoing proceedings. Defense teams will counter with fresh evidence and expert reports on jail conditions. Judges will test every assurance and every risk factor. And if the courts are persuaded, the Home Secretary will move to complete the process. If not, expect another round of requests, adjustments, and site visits.
For now, the visit gives New Delhi something it has wanted for years: a credible, independent look at conditions on the ground, in the exact place where high-profile returnees would be held. For UK judges, it supplies new facts. For both governments, it creates a record that can be tested—and, if needed, tightened—case by case.
What the UK team examined, and why it matters for pending cases
People involved in these inspections say the checklists are far more granular than before. It is not enough to say “secure ward” or “medical care available.” Courts ask: how many inmates per cell? How many guards per shift? What is the retention period for CCTV? How quickly are health complaints escalated? And can an external authority verify the answers?
- Infrastructure: cell size, light, ventilation, sanitation, and segregation options.
- Security: staff-to-inmate ratios, surveillance coverage, and incident reporting.
- Medical care: availability of doctors, psychiatry support, and emergency protocols.
- Legal access: private rooms, call access, and time with counsel without interference.
- Oversight: logs, audit trails, and surprise inspections by authorized monitors.
India’s broader playbook is to combine these details with diplomatic assurances. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s UK visit in July, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said Delhi is working "very closely" with London on such cases. That cooperation helps move multiple files at once, not just the famous ones.
Back in Tihar, the reality is that implementation will be watched as closely as the paper plan. If the CPS report is favorable, expect prosecutors to press that point in court. If the defense counters with fresh reports of risk, expect judges to look for proof that the promised enclave is real, staffed, and ready. That is where this inspection could make the difference: it turns promises into something a court can test.
