In Brief
An Indian national convicted in Mauritius for drug trafficking was sentenced to 26 years' imprisonment and repatriated to India under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. He sought reduction of his sentence to 10 years based on sentencing provisions in the Indian NDPS Act, which was rejected by the Central Government. The High Court allowed his writ petition, finding incompatibility between the two sentences. The Supreme Court allowed the Central Government's appeal, holding that incompatibility under the Act and bilateral treaty refers only to fundamental incompatibility with Indian law, not mere sentencing disparities. The sentence imposed by Mauritius remains binding on India unless fundamentally incompatible with core Indian law principles. The Central Government's discretionary power of adaptation is not automatic even where sentencing differences exist.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.