In a major victory for the security agencies, the Mumbai 26/11 attack accused Tahawwur Rana will be extradited to India from the United States.
The extradition of Rana was cleared by the US Supreme Court after it dismissed a review petition against his conviction in the case. Rana’s lawyer had argued that the Supreme Court should block his extradition based on the interpretation of the offence in the India-US extradition treaty.
He further said that the court should grant the writ. On merits the court should hold that the term offence in the double jeopardy provision of the United State-India extradition treaty refers to the conduct of underlying the charges in the two countries rather than the elements of the crimes the respective countries have charged, the lawyer also argued in the US Supreme Court.
The National Investigation Agency which is investigating the case against Rana had fought a long legal battle to have Rana extradited. Rana and his legal team had however managed to stall the extradition for long through various legal challenges. The US government however supported the request made by the NIA last year and asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari submitted by Rana.
Rana is a Canadian national of Pakistan origin and was instrumental in helping David Coleman Headley with his travel to Mumbai on various occasions. Headley was the who carried out the reconnaissance of various targets in Mumbai which were finally attacked by ten terrorists of the Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Tayiba.
Before Rana approached the Supreme Court, he had unsuccessfully appealed his extradition in the lower courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. In August, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the India-US Extradition Treaty allows for Rana’s extradition.
Importance of the extradition
The NIA had managed to question Headley in the United States following his arrest. However, an extradition of Headley was off the charts since he had signed a plea bargain deal with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
During Headley’s questioning, the NIA did not manage to get any fresh leads as he had already confessed before the FBI. He did not say anything more than what he had told the FBI. Even while he was produced before a court in Mumbai through video conferencing, he stuck to the same points that he had first told the FBI. Headley could not have diverted or said anything more than what he had already said at the time of his arrest owing to the plea bargain deal he had with the US agency.
The NIA had however not managed to question Rana as his interrogation always was challenged through legal challenges. Once in India, Rana would be questioned by the NIA for the first time and newer details could emerge from this.
During a court hearing in the US, Rana had said that he was part of the ISI and was in no way associated with the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, the terror group which carried out the Mumbai attack. The court had at that time found no evidence linking Rana directly to the attack.
The NIA however had its own details on Rana and even mentioned the same in the chargesheet. The NIA made it clear that it would have been impossible for Headley to travel to Mumbai without Rana’s assistance who had played the role of a travel agent. Rana may have said that he is not associated with the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, but we are sure that he helped Headley at the behest of the ISI, an NIA official tells Organiser.
Further the NIA has evidence that suggests that every time Headley returned to the US after visiting Mumbai, he would first meet with Rana.
The NIA says that the questioning of Rana would give them answers to several questions. Headley during his visit to Mumbai would often travel with the high and mighty to avoid scrutiny. Headley has said that none of those who he moved around with knew what he was up to. Headley may be lying, but the NIA hopes that Rana would give more details.
The NIA also has proof that Headley had made more than one visit to India. He had also visited Pune and Delhi. Although these details remain a bit sketchy, Rana would be able to provide more details about the same.
The NIA says that Rana was aware of Headley’s involvement in the attack. He had not only assisted Headley but also provided a cover for his activities as a result of which he remained undetected in India. Rana will also be able to provide details regarding Headley’s meetings during which the planning of the attack and also the targets were discussed.
For the ISI, this is a worrisome development as Rana will expose the agency during questioning. Rana has told a court that he is an ISI agent and this would be a cause of concern for the spy agency when the Mumbai 26/11 suspect reaches India.
Comments