Ex‑SC Judge Deepak Verma Testifies for Nirav Modi in UK Extradition Case – Impact on India‑UK Legal Ties On 19 March 2026 , former Supreme Court judge Deepak Verma appeared before the United Kingdom Supreme Court to support the appeal of fugitive businessman Nirav Modi against his extradition to India. Key Developments Justice Verma warned that, if extradited, Modi could face interrogation by the CBI , the ED and other bodies. Modi’s counsel argued that such interrogation could lead to torture, invoking a claim of violation of his human‑rights. Justice Verma noted that the “sovereign assurance” given by the Indian government—that Modi would not be interrogated—does not bind Indian courts. The Indian government’s counsel challenged Verma’s expertise and relevance of his testimony. The Court reserved its judgment after hearing the submissions. Important Facts The case is part of a series of interventions by former Indian judges in the UK: In 2021, former Justice Markandeya Katju gave evidence before the Westminster Magistrate's Court , arguing that a fair trial in India was unlikely. The court dismissed his view as biased. Former Bombay High Court judge Abhay Thipsay submitted similar evidence, which was also rejected. UPSC Relevance 1. Extradition law and international cooperation : Understanding the legal framework governing the surrender of fugitives helps in answering GS2 questions on treaties, mutual legal assistance, and diplomatic safeguards. 2. Judicial independence and accountability : The episode highlights the role of former judges in influencing foreign courts, raising issues of judicial ethics, credibility, and the balance between sovereign assurances and domestic legal processes. 3. Law‑enforcement agencies : Knowledge of the mandates of the CBI and ED is essential for GS2 questions on internal security and financial crimes. Way Forward India may seek to strengthen diplomatic assurances in future extradition treaties to allay concerns of interrogation and custodial torture. Domestic reforms to ensure transparent, speedy trials for high‑profile economic offenders could reduce reliance on foreign courts. Clear guidelines on the admissibility of testimony from former judges in foreign jurisdictions would enhance the credibility of India’s legal position. While the final judgment remains pending, the case underscores the complex interplay between domestic law‑enforcement agencies, international legal cooperation, and the credibility of India’s judicial system—areas frequently examined in the UPSC mains and prelims.