Abu Salem case 28March2022 09:14 Does a change in r foreign government? ‘+ India- dualist country - if conflict between PIL and municipal law, apply the latter. 1e nullify any diplomatic assurances made by the previous government to a Abu Salem vs. CBI (2013) 2 SCC 2bench (Sathasivam, Chelameswar) of the Supreme Court. Blasts in Bombay post-Babri Masjid incident. Charges filed, and arms recovered from Abu Salem. Red Commer notice issued. Salem reaches Portugal. Requested extradition in 9 cases (CBI, Mumbai Police, and Delhi Police). Both india and Portugal are members of a terror treaty. GO! issued notification under Section 3(2) of the Extradition Act. GOI then extended assurances to the Portugal government that accused would not be subject to death penalty or 25 years imprisonment. However, ministerial order denied extradition under provisions of TADA, Explosives, and Arms Act. Indian Ambassador to Portugal made assurances that he will be tried for charges only for which extradition has been sought. In 2005, Abu Salem handed over to GOI and brought to court in Mumbai. In 2006, supplementary charge sheet filed with charges violative of our assurances to Portugal. Does adding extra charges violate the promises made by the previous government? What is the value of a diplomatic assurances? Is DA in the nature of a treaty? Was there intention to make it a treaty? GOI promised only the bare minimum, but not specialty, PODC, etc. Salem brought case before Portugal Courts. India argued that it has followed its fundamental rules of extradition law. Art. 32 petition filed, argued that the GOI has violated the orders of the Portuguese courts- the respondents are lowering their esteem in the arena of international law, violating PODC, specialty. Does adding extra charges violate the promises made by the previous government? In EU, this is considered to be torture.