The High Court of England and Wales rejected Nirav Modi’s appeal against a 2021 lower court order on Wednesday (March 25), allowing his extradition to India. The ruling by the King’s Bench Division in London moves the Indian government one step closer to bringing the fugitive diamantaire back to face trial for the Rs 6,498-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud.The latest verdict shuts the door on Modi’s second challenge before the High Court to re-open his previously dismissed extradition appeal. Here is what his team argued, how the Indian government countered them, and what the court’s ruling means for the extradition.Supposed risk of ill-treatment by Indian authoritiesModi’s legal challenge relied on a rare provision in UK law that allows a court to re-open a concluded appeal to avoid “real injustice” in exceptional circumstances. His legal team based this application on a 2025 UK High Court judgment in the case of another Indian fugitive, arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari, accused of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption.In the Bhandari case, the court had refused his extradition on the basis that the use of torture and ill-treatment by investigative authorities in India to extract confessions is “commonplace and endemic”. Relying on this, Modi’s lawyers argued that if extradited, he would likely be detained and interrogated by multiple Indian investigative agencies, exposing him to an unacceptable risk of torture, in violation of his human rights. His legal team relied on expert testimonies of Ashul Agarwal, a practising advocate from Delhi, and Justice Deepak Verma, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India.To counter this, the Government of India submitted assurances to the court in December 2025 and February 2026, undertaking that upon his return, Modi would not be interrogated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), or any other investigative agency. The government assured the court that the investigation stage is over, the cases are ready for trial, and Modi is being sought solely to face judicial proceedings.Modi’s legal team opposed this, arguing that they were merely diplomatic promises that could not be legally enforced across independent investigative agencies in India. However, the court rejected his arguments, ruling that the Indian government had provided a “sheaf of assurances that are comprehensive, detailed and reliable”. It noted that the assurances were given in good faith and that the government would not risk the “extremely damaging” consequences of breaching a diplomatic promise, especially in such a high-profile case.Explained | Nirav Modi extradition: why he’s in London, the case against him, and what nextBecause the risk of torture identified in the Bhandari case was linked to interrogation, the Indian government’s commitment not to interrogate Modi effectively negated that risk, and the court held that there were no exceptional grounds made to re-open the appeal.Risk of suicide, effects of hostile ‘media trial’Story continues below this adWednesday’s ruling is the culmination of a legal process that began with Modi’s arrest in London in 2019 after India’s extradition requests, based on two primary sets of charges. The government said that the PNB fraud was orchestrated by obtaining fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LOUs), which are essentially bank guarantees used to obtain overseas credit, and their proceeds were subsequently laundered.A supplementary request was later added, accusing Modi of perverting the course of justice by destroying evidence and threatening to kill a witness, named Ashish Lad.In February 2021, the Westminster magistrates’ court allowed India’s extradition request. It found that the Indian government had established a prima facie case (appearing to be true on the face of it) and that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. The court noted that Modi and his associates had conspired with bank officials to issue LOUs without the required cash margins or entries in the bank’s core system, deliberately deceiving PNB.Express investigations | Nirav-PNB rot deeper: LoUs worth Rs 25,000 crore were issued fraudulentlyDuring the 2021 hearings, Modi’s lawyers argued that he would not receive a fair trial in India due to a politicised environment and a hostile “media trial”. The court rejected this, noting that while politicians had made “ill-advised” comments, the Indian judiciary remains independent and capable of managing high-profile cases.Story continues below this adThe judge also dismissed concerns about poor prison conditions, relying on video evidence and assurances that Modi would be held in Barrack 12 of Mumbai’s Arthur Road Jail, a facility deemed clean. While acknowledging a high risk of suicide, the judge determined it was not “immediate” and that the Indian government had the capacity to cope with his condition through the medical facilities at Arthur Road Prison and access to private treatment.Following the Magistrates’ Court order, the UK Home Secretary approved the extradition. Modi then made his first appeal to the High Court. While permission to appeal was denied on most grounds, the court in August 2021 allowed him to challenge the extradition solely on the basis of his mental health.Under Section 91 of the UK Extradition Act, a person cannot be extradited if their physical or mental condition makes it “unjust or oppressive” to do so. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights also prohibits extradition if it would lead to inhuman or degrading treatment.In the course of the appeal, psychiatric experts testified that Modi suffered from severe, recurrent depression and posed a “substantial” risk of suicide if extradited. His lawyers argued that the medical facilities at Arthur Road Jail were inadequate to manage this risk.Story continues below this adHowever, in November 2022, the High Court dismissed this appeal. The judges acknowledged Modi’s fluctuating mental health but placed weight on India’s specific medical assurances – the Indian government promised that Modi would receive regular psychiatric care, access to a private doctor of his choice, and round-the-clock monitoring by trained staff.The court concluded that these tailored arrangements would adequately mitigate the suicide risk – meaning his extradition would be neither unjust nor oppressive. It also held that it was “far from satisfied” that a suicide attempt would be “voluntary”, “rational and thought-through” rather than an impulsive act resulting from a loss of capacity.How this affects extraditionWith his standard appeal routes in the UK now largely exhausted, the case will return to the Westminster magistrates’ court to address the procedural and administrative aspects of executing the extradition order.Once the court and the UK government clear these final formalities, Modi’s last remaining legal option to delay physical surrender would be to seek an interim stay from the European Court of Human Rights.